PATRIOT UNIVERSITY

DISSERTATION FOR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

DR. WAYNE KNIGHT

SUBMITTED BY

KENT HOVIND

PENSACOLA, FLORIDA

MAY 25, 1991

Dedication page

I can think of many people who have been

influential in the production of this book.

Miss Kim Van Gundy spent countless hours typing,

correcting and retyping the manuscript.

My Mom and Dad 6upplled the computer for this work

to be done on. There have been many times they financially

supported my ministry.

My wife has put up with me reading well into the

night many, many times. She has also patiently let me

spend hundreds of hours on the phone gathering information

and scheduling meetings. In those hundreds of moments when

I thought of not completing this work, she encouraged me to

go on.

My three children; Kent Andrew, Eric and Marlissa

have often traveled with me as I preach on the subject of

dinosaurs and the Bible. They have been a great help to me

as we set up (and later pack up) thr~e tables full of

books, bones, tapes, maps and graphs for each meeting.

Patriot University inspired me the continue my

education by making it possible for me to study at my own

pace and complete this thesis as I could.

Hundreds of pastors and laymen have encouraged me

to continue on in this unusual and unique ministry.

Many science teachers and writers have left their

mark In my life. Some of these have been evolutionists and

some have been creationists.

Most of all I must thank my Lord Jesus Christ for

patiently working with me and equipping me for the work of

the ministry. I marvel that He has counted me faithful,

putting me into the ministry.

Kent Hovind

5-25-91

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a

creation/science evangelist. I ·live in Pensacola, Florida.

I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've

been veY'y active in the creation/evc,lution contY'oversy foY"

quite some time. As an evangelist, God has given me the

opportunity to preach and teach the wonderful story of His

marvelous creation over 400 times each year to churches,

schools (public and private), parent groups, youth groups,

on the radio, and in university dabates.

It is my burning desire to help Christians get back

to a simple faith in God's Word. Satan's method has alway~

been to instill doubt in God's Word. The first sentence

that came from Satan that is recorded for us in the Bible

is: "Yea, hath God said?" He started by questi':'ning God's

Word in the garden of Eden.

it ever since.

It \40rked there so he has used

In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has

launched has been against the first eleven chapters of

Genesis. He knows that the entire Bible stands or falls on

the val idity of these chapters. I bel ieve that the Bible

is the infall ible, inerrant, inspired, per fe,:t Word of God.

I bel ieve that the Bi bl e needs to be read and bel ieved as

it stands. Christians are often guilty of neglecting c'r

hJisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their

preconceived ideas.

In this book· I'll be cc,vering, in a nutshell, the

creation/evolution controversy. I will explain why it is

so important, the effects that the theory of evolution has

had on our sc,,:iety, the creatic,n alternative, and what we

should do about the problem. I will try to answer questions

that modern science has raised from a Seriptural viewpoint.

I am, without apology, a Bible-believinQ Christian. . -

I have been saved fc,r twenty-twe. years by the bloe,d c,f

Jesus Chr ist, Ge,d's Son. I believe that Gc,d's Word is

infallible and flawless in every detail. If the Bible says

that something was created a certain way, then that is Just

the way it happened. Now, a. a science teacher, I want to

keep an open mind and understand why, he,w, and when God

created the earth, if those things can be knc,wn. There are

some things we cannot understand, and some things I believe

that we can.

I will be qLtick tc, point out that "there is

nothing new under the sun." Most of my ideas are the

result c,f the input of hundreds of Godly men and women

through the years. I have attempted in this book to simply

e:..;plain the things I have learned through many years of

studying both science and the Bible.

In the last twenty-two ye.ars I have read hundreds

of books by creationists and evolutionists alike on the

subject of origins. Many great thinkers and scientists

have had an influence on me. lowe much to many, but I

must in the final analysis, take the blame/credit for what

is written in this book. Many things I can document and

verify with the "experts" (whatever an expert is). Some

things in this book I couldn't prove to anyone. I only ask

that you realistically look at the ideas presented and ask

yourself the simple question, "does this key open the lock,

dc'es this answer the question?"

be right.

If it does--it just might

Only God knows all the details of how it really

happened. I believe He has revealed many details about the

original creation in His book the BibJe. Everything else

we come up with down here is just our theory.

My weekly radio broadcast has been instrumental in

answering a number of questions about the creation/

evolution controversy. I have tried to answer questions as

thoroughly and scripturally as I know how. Each broadcast

dealt with a different topic. We have selected some of the

most helpful topics and developed them into chapters toward

this book. The chapters, and cc,nsequently the sUb.ject

matter of the book, begins by discussing the history of

evolution. Where did we get this crazy idea anyway? The

second chapter deals with the fact that evolution is a

religion and not a science, and therefore, should be

excluded from public school curriculum. The third chapter

deals with the effects of evolution. What has the teaching

of evolution brought to the wc,rld in the wa'y c,f gc,,:,d e,r

harm? In the fourth chapter we deal with the subject of

time. How old is the earth? In the fifth chapter we

discuss the Big Bang theol'"Y. In the sixth chaptel'" we give

infol'"mation about the Geologic Column, the foundation of

all ~volutional'"Y teaching. In chaptel'" seven we answel'"

questic'ns about l'"adio cal'"bc,n dating. Chaptel'" eight gives

the truth about cave men. Chaptel'" nine discusses the "best

evidence" evolutic,nists have fc,l'" evolutic'n, that is,

al'"chaeoptel'"Yx. Chapter ten answel'"S the question, "Has

science cl'"eated life in the laboyatory?" We took ten

chapteys of the book to destl'"oy the edifice of evolution,

and cleal'" away the yubble s':o that we cc,uld build c'n a clean

foundat ieln.

Several leg.itimate questions about the cyeation

account given in the Bible need to be answeyed. Numbey

one, "Don't all scientists believe in evolution?" In

chaptey eleven we discuss scientists, past and pyesent, who

were creationists. In chaptel'" twelve, we answey a commonly

raised complaint, I'Genesis 1 conflicts with Genesis 2.11 In

chaptey thirteen we giv.e inteyesting evidence that

dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I believe that

dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but they have lived

with man all through his six thousand yeay histoyy. In

chapter fourteen we deal with the question, "Al'"e dinosaurs

e~~t inct?" In chapter fifteen we discuss the hUman and

dinosaur footprints found togethey in Glen Rose, Texas. In

chaptey sixteen we give the cyeationists' altel'"native

theoyy to explain the geologic features of the earth within

a six thousand year framework.

While all of the evidence is not in yet, I feel it

is still the best option to take God's word at face value.

The Bible has never been pre,ven wrong yet, and I bel ieve it

never wi 11 be.

THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

Where in the world did the idea come from that

things left to themselves can improve with time? Who

would start a crazy idea like that? This idea is the

opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.

For instance, all the highways in our nation today left to

themselves decay, deteriorate, and fall apart. A house

left to itself will become a wreck. It takes work and

constant planning to make anything improve. Everything

tends toward disorder. The first and second laws of

thermodynamics are well established scientific laws that

have never been observed in the universe te. be bre.ken. The

first law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed

by ordinary means. We do not see anything being created

tc.day, and yet we do see an entire universe of created

material. This clearly indicates a Creator. There are

people in the world today who wish to avoid the concept of

God. They do not like the idea of a God telling them what

to do. Therefore, they have come up with the most

dangerous, damnable doctrine every imagined, evolution. I

would like in this chapter to trace the history of

evolutionary dc,,:tr ine. Where did this dangerc.us dc,,:tr ine

come from?

Evolution is purely a religion. There is nco

scientific evidence at all to back up any form of macro­

evolution.

The technical definition of evolution means

"change." There is no question that. things do change. All

change is directed either downward toward less order if

left to themselves, or upward with a master-mind behind it.

The cities that we live in have 'evolved' over the years.

The city where you are now probably did not even exist

three hundred years ago. A college professor told me that

cities 'evolve' with time. 1 said to him, "1 agree. If

you use this as your definition of 'evolved' then you are

including a design, a designer, and lots of work--planned

intelligent progress, not chaos ordered by self. Not one

of the buildings. in your city built itself by the material

rising up out of the ground." It did not happen that way.

It does not ever happen that way. It never will happen

that way. It requires intelligence and a designer.

When I speak of evolution, I am not referring to

small minor changes that naturally occur as animals have to

make some adjustments to their environment. For instance,

if we released hundreds of rabbits in an area with cold

winters, only the anim~ls with the heavier fur would

survive. So within a few years, the population would have

a little heavier fur than the earlier popul~tions. These

small minor population shifts brought about by environment

are referred to as 'micro-evolution.' There has been no

change in the genetic material of the rabbit. There has

only been a change in the ratio of the population. You

still have the same kind of animal. If that climate were

to change back to.a milder climate, the population of

animals would change back to having a lighter fur.

Macro-evolution would be defined as changing into a

different kind of animal. There is no similarity between

micro-evc.lution and macro-evolution. Many evolutionists

will use micro-evolution to try to prove that macro-

evolution is true. We must guard ourselves not to fall for

this false logic.

The idea that evolutionists try to get across today

is that there is a continual upward progression. They

claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by

itself as if there is an inner-drive toward mc.re perfection

and order. This is totally opposite of the first and

second law of thermodynamics. It goes against all

scientific evidence that has been a2cumulated. Yet, this

lie is what many men believe today. We don't see it

happening anywhere in our universe today.

evidence of this in the fossil record.

We don't see any

I would like to trace the history of evolution

beginning with the fall of Satan from heaven, through the

last si!/; thousand years, to modern-day evolut i':'n, and

explain what those teaching this doctrine· have planned for

the future.

To really understand the history of evolution, we

have to understand the author. Satan is the master-mind

behind this false doctrine. He was thrown out of heaven

because of his desire to exalt himself to godhood. One of

, -,

the underlying reasons that evolution appeals to so many

people is because it appeals to man's pYide. Isaiah 13:11

says, "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and

will lay low the haught{ness of the proud." God is against

pride. In Isaiah 14:12-14 the Bible tells us of the fall

of Satan from heaven.

How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Later 6n in the passage God says that He will cast down

Lucifer.

I personally believe that Satan fell from heaven

about a hundred years after the creation of Adam and EVe.

I believe that he had watched Adam and Eve have f~llowship

with their creator with pride and envy in his heart. He

had been God's choir director since he was created. His

desire to be God was thwarted when God c~st him out of

heaven.

Ezekiel 28 tells of Ezekiel taking up a prophesy

against Tyrus. It is obviQus from the context that the

king of Tyre is a picture or a type of Satan. Ezekiel

28:2-5, 17 says,

Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up (here we see the pride) and thou hast said,"I am a god, I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God,

though thou set thine heart as the heart of Godl Behold, thou art wiser than Daniell there is no secret that they can hide from thee; With thy wisdom and with thy understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thou treasures; By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches •••

Thine heart was lifted up because of thy b~auty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy br ighteness: 1 will cast thee tc, the grc,und, 1 will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Tyrus is a type of Satan who lifted his heart up. F'r ide is

mentioned repeatedly in the Bible as being one of the main

things that God hates. 1 have noted several hundred

references to pride that show God's attitude toward it. He

hates it!! Here are several.

Lev. 26:19 "1 will break the pride of your power,"

I Sa~. 2:3 "talk no ~ore so exceedingly proudly"

Psalm 10:2 "The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor"

Psalm 10:4 "The wicked through the pride of his cc,untenanee will ne,t seek after Gc,d •• "

Psalm 73:6 '~Pride compasses them about as a cha.in; .... 11

F's. 101:5 "Him that hath an high-look and a proLld heart will I not suffer."

F's. 119:21 "Thc,u hast rebuked the pre'L1d ... "

Provo 6:16 "These six things doth the Lord h~te ••• a Dr oud 1 c,ok .. II

F'r,:,v. 8: 13 "Pr ide, and arrogan':y ... dc, 1 hate."

Provo 13:10 "Only by pride cometh contention."

Provo 15:25 "The Lord will destroy the house of the prc,ud ..... It

Provo 15:5 "Every one that is proud in the heart is an abomination to the Lord ••• "

Provo 15:8 "Pride goeth before destruction ... "

Provo 21:4 "An high look, and a proud heart .•. is sin. II

Is. 14: 12-15 Satan's fall "1 will ascend •.. "

Jer. 9:23 "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom neither let the mighty man. glory in his might; let nc,t the rich man glory in his riches .•• "

Dbed. 3 "Pride •.• hath deceived thee."

Matt 23:5 "Love the Llppermost rooms at feasts."

Matt. 23:12 "Whosoever shall exhalt himself shall be abased."

Mark 7:21 "Fro~ within .•. proceed evil thoughts ... cr ide ..... II

LLlke 1:51 "He scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

Rom 1:22-30 "Professing themselves to be wise .... prc,ud ..... II

I Cor. 8: 1 "Knowledge puffeth up ••• "

I C·or. 13: 4 "Char it y ••. is nc,t pu f fed up .•. "

I Tim. 3:5 ".,.lifted up with pride ye fall intc, ..... II

11 Tim. '? ... - .. ..J .. ...:... "Men shall be lovers c,f their own

selves ... proud ... "

James 4:5 "God resisteth the proud,"

I In. 2:15 " ••. pride of life ... "

There you have Just a few of the many verses in the

Bible that deal with pride. Gc.d hates pride. In his

pride, Satan decided he'would exalt himself and take over

the throne of God. This is where evolution started. It

started in heaven in the heart of Satan. Satan and a

number of angels that followed him were cast down to the

earth. Then we have the story repeated in the heart of

man. Man is trying to exalt himself. This is what

evolution is teaching today, that man is the pinnacle, the

ultimate.

When Satan realized he could not take over the

throne of God, he decided to destroy what God had created

instead. Sat~n, in the form of a serpent, brought the

doctrine of evolution to the Garden of Eden. In Genesis

3:5 the serpent says to Eve, " •.. ye shall be as gods."

Pride is the same thing that Satan used to cause the fall

of man in the Garden of Eden. Satan was jealous of Adam

and Eve and th~ir close union with God. The same is true

today. Satan wants your attentic,n any time yc,u try to

serve the Heavenly Father. When Adam and Eve fell for the

line that they could become as gods, the doctrine of

evolution was successfully introduced to the world. Man's

pride and ego had been appealed to and he was no longer

content with the status God had given him.

Where did it go from there? Genesis 4:3 says, "And

in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of

the frLlit c,f the ground an offering unto the Lc'rd." Cain

knew better. God wanted a blood sacrifice. God had shed

innocent blood to cover the sin of Adam and Eve. Cain knew

God wanted a bloody animal sacrifice, a lamb to be precise.

Cain thought that he could get favor with God by bringing

the work of his own hands. Cain promoted the evolutionary

doctrine that man can progress by his own efforts. It was

Cain's pride that caused him to disregard God's commands to

bring a lamb. Instead he brought the fruit of the ground

which represents his own efforts to please God. When God

rejected his offer, he became angry at God. Since he CC'Llld

nc.t hurt Gc.d, he took out his anger on Gc.d's serv.ant; his

brc.ther. In pride, he slew hii brother because his

brother's sacrifice was accepted. We are told later in the

New Testament the reason why Cain killed his brother. In I

John 3: 12 we read, "Nc.t as Cain, whc. was c.f that wicked

one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him?

Because his own works were evil, and his brother's

r ighteoLls." Th is is st ill true today. Anyone that dc.es ,

good in this world is hated by those that do evil. Cain's

efforts to closer to God met with disaster. Cain

was driven out from his family to wander in the world. His

desc~ndants apparently continued rejecting God. Man full

of pride will seldom admit that he is wrong.

The evil in the world continued to get worse until

God had to destroy the inhabitants of the earth with a

fl oc.d. When the Flood was over, Satan began to work on

Noah's descendants. The story of evolution continues in

Gen. 9:22, "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the

nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren

wi thout." Ham, instead of dc.ing the wise thing c.f cover ing

up his father's nakedness, went out and laughed about it to

his two brothers, evidently. This resulted in a curse

being placed upon Ham's son, Caanan. Ham's pride caused

him to try to make his father look bad. People who are

always cutting down others are usually motivated by pride.

They think making someone else look worse will some how

make themselves look better.

The story continues in Genesis 10. The people had

been commanded by Gc,d to spread c'ut and replenish the

earth. Some dec ided instead to rebel against Gc,d' s

authority and exalt themselves. Genesis 10:8-9 says, "And

Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the

He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore

it i~ said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the

Lord." The wc,rd 'before' in that verse means "in the face

of the Lordi', or lIagainst the Lord. II. Nimrcld's rebellicln

against the Lord caused him to begin construction of the

Tower of Babel. ~Je see this tower mentioned in Gen.

11:1-9:

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And-the Lord said, Behold, the People is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from

them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go' down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

This tower represented man's desire to exalt himself to the

seat c.f God. The pride of the rebels caused the people to

want to disobey God. They wanted to stay together and

build big cities even though God had commanded them to

spread out and fill the earth.

Babylon was one of the first cities built after the

floc.d. It still exists today. The people reluctantly

spread out after God Judged them by confusing the

1 anguages. At this point they spoke all different

1 anguages because the Lord ".:onfoLlnded their speech." I'm.

sure for several generations they tc.ld stc.ries aboLlt hc.w it

used to be in the 'good c.ld days' when there was Just one

big city and everyone was one happy family.

As we trace the history of evolution, it becomes

slightly confusing at this point because there are going to

be several different branches on the tree. I will focus c.n

Just two of the main branches.

When the people left the Tower of Babel, they tc,,:.k

their false religion of evolution with them. They still

hoped that they could exalt themselves to godhood. For the

sake c.f the study, we shall ca"ll them the Eastern and

Western branches c,f evc,lution.

In the European community, actually in area of Asia

Minor and the country of Turkey, we have the Western branch

of eve,lution. In the countries of China, Japan, and India

the Eastern branch of evolution developed.

actuaily developed simultaneously.

The branches

The Flc'od was abc,ut 2400 B.C. which maf(es it abc,ut

4400 years ago. The Tower of Babel was probably built

within the first three to five hundred years after the

flood. Let's Just assume that it was about 1900 B.C. when

the Tower of Babel was built. The people were scattered

from the Tower. Many of the pec'ple, in their pride, still

tried to find some way to become their own god.

the basic motive behind evolution.

This is

For the next several hundred years following the

Tower of Babel, there were many evolutionary-type myths

passed down from generation to generation. In the year 540

B.C. a fellow named Thales was born in Asia Minor.

point in his life he began the first of the modern

At some

evolutionary doctrines. He said that man had evolved from

animals. animals had come from plants, plahts had come from

inorganic elements, and all of these had come from water.

Anaximander, one of the stUdents of Thales, enlarged on

this theory slightly. Anaximander lived from 511 to 547

B.C. He taught Pythagoras, who is famous for the

Pythagorean thec,rem used in mathemat ics.

At this point, there was a split in the

evolutionary doctrine. One grc.up became atheistic, and

said that there was no God. Pythagoras started the group

that became pantheistic. He said there had to be a God

based on the design he saw in nature, but the god that he

saw was the god in nature. The idea of limiting God to the

natural elements is the underlying theme of pantheism. He

lived from 580 to 489 B.C. He believed that nature is

divine.

There are basically three types of religions in the

world. The first type is atheism which says that there is

no God. Psalm 14:1 calls the people who believe there is

no 13ed fCII:.ls. The second type of religion is pantheistic

which says that nature is god. This group says that the

universe is in control of itself and knows what it wants to

Pantheism imparts a divine nature to the

elements. The third type of religion says that God is

outside of, above, and "beyond His creation. He is not

limited by His creation in any way.

infinite God of the Bible.

This is the almighty

Socrates was a pantheist Greek philosopher who

lived from 469 to 399 B.C. Socrates did not leave many

writ.ings, but his student Plato wrote prolifically. Plato,

like his teacher Socrates, was definitely a pantheist. He

also believed that nature is god. Munitz from his book

Theories of the Universe, pg. 61 says,

Plato also makes use of another analogical pattern of thought in describing the universe as an all-inclusive Living Creature, one whose body is perfectly spherical and whose soul animates the whole world. In addition to this World-Soul, the various individual heavenly bodies are regarded by Plato as divine beings.

In the writings of Plato, we have a very definite

description of the great chain of being, or an order of the

wor I d SOLII. He taught that the universe is a living

creature in itself. Plata's idea was nat one of ascension

in evolution, but one of descending. He thought that it

went from God to man and on down to the atomic particles.

His idea of putting everything in a nice neat order came

Plato developed this further into the great

chain c,f being.

Democrates lived from 450 to 352 B.C. He started a

school ,:alled the Atomist school. Democrates coined the

wot'd ~atom.' He thought that the interplay of atomic

particles was all that was necessary to describe how the

universe got here (the same basic idea as is. taught in

modern evolution).

Next we come to a stUdent of Plato named Aristotle.

He lived from 384 to 322 B.C. Aristotle developed the

"Scale of Being." He believed in reincarnation which

teaches that after death you would return to earth as a new

being, either higher or lower, depending on how you behaved

during your present life. This is very similar to the

modern-day Eastern religions. He developed the idea of a

)..0

"world soul" more fully and passed it on to many more of

his students. Aristotle believed in a descending order of

natur e. He believed in the "eternal cosmos" which says

that nature has always existed. He bel ieved in spontaneous

generation which says that life arose from non-life.

Aristotle is known for many scientific discoveries, and no

dc,ubt, had a great positive impact c,n the world of science.

However, his god was not the God of the Bible. His god was

nature.

Great.

Aristotle was tutor to a man named Alexander the

Alexander the Great was the leader of the Greek

Empire of the third century B.C. He spread the teachings

of Aristotle all around his empire.

These men are all part of the Western branch of the

evolutionary doctrine. The Eastern branch was also

developing during this same time. People had travelled

from the Tower of Babel to the Eastern countries of India,

Pakistan, and China. Civilizations began developing there.

Beginning around 500 B.C., there were at least five

major religions that were·developing in the East. The

story gets a little confusing as we try to trace the

history of evolution. Here in the Eastern branch we again

have two basic philosophies of religion. One philosophy is

atheistic, saying that there is no god at all. The other

philosophy again was pantheistic, saying that nature is

geld.

Hinduism became very popular around 600 B.C. It

probably began many years before that. This religion is

broken up into four branches. Vedanta is the most popular

br anch. It teaches that the universe is a living soul.

Sikhism is a another branch that began around 1500 A.D.

Janism is a branch of Hinduism that says that there is no

gc.d at all. Janism teaches the doctrine of Karma. This is

a system of reincarnation where people are constantly being

born back as a different creature depending upon how they

lived in this world. The final stage of this reincarnation

is Nirvana, which is annihilation and you finally get to

stop coming back. You just cease to exist. The fC'Ltrth

branch is called Sankhya which is also atheistic.

Another religion developing in the Eastern world

during this time was Confucianism. Confucius lived from

551 to 47'3 B.C. He very strongly endorsed ancestor

worship. There was no god or after life in the system

developed by Confucius. It was simply a system of ethical,

political, and pragmatic teachings. It Was a very

atheistic religion that totally left God out.

Zoroaster Was the religion of the Persians that

developed around 600 B.C. Dar ius and Cyrus, who ',."ere both

mentioned in the Bible, were followers of Zoroaster. It is

quite possible that the wise men who came to Bethlehem were

• :.f this cult. There is no way to prove this foy certain •

This religion believed that Satan and God were equally

powerful, thereby, limiting God. This shows that they did

not have the right view of God in their theology.

Eastern religion is still prominent today.

This

The Buddhist religion Was also developing during

this time in the East. Buddha lived from 563 to 480 B.C.

Buddha means "the enlightened one." This religion

originated in India, and was later expelled from that

country. It later became very popular in China.

Eventually, it merged with the teachings of Confucius, and

became a sort of hodge-podge religion. It was a very

atheistic religion. It had a very rigid system of Karma,

which was a cause/affect system. By that I mean, he

believed that your deeds in each incarnation, as they

called it, were reflected in the next reincarnation.

is no mention in Buddhism of the original creation.

There

The fifth major Eastern religion that began in that

time period was Taoism founded by Lao Tse. He lived from

604 to 517 B.C. This religion was a rival of

Confuciusianism in China. "Taoism ... was also an

evolutionary religi,:,n, built around the cc'ncept of 'the

vJay. ' .. (The Le,ng War Against Ge.d, p. 221) It was

basically pantheistic in philosophy. Taoism teaches that

nature is bi-polar. All of nature is divided into yin and

yang. Yin is represented by water on the one end, and yang

is represented by fire at the other end.

The five major Eastern religions that developed

during this time were HindUism, ConfUcianism, Zoroaster ism,

Buddhism, and Taoism. Because of the atheistic and

pantheistic philosophies of these religions, and the lack

of importance placed on God, the entrance of communism into

these countries was very simple. When the evolutionary

doctrine was taught in these countries, the people did not

have to change their religion in order to include it.

EVolution and communism blended in fine with the Eastern

religions. In about 1895, a man named Yen Fu translated

Thomas Huxley's book into Chinese. That was probably the

turning point in China. It led the way for communism to

take over so many of the oriental countries.

At the time of Christ, it was almost universally

accepted as "scientific fact" that the world was infinitely

old. The two philosophies mentioned above were very

prevalent during the development of the early church.

These are the philosophies that were referred to in Col.

2:8 where the Bible says "Beware lest any man spoil you

through philosophy and vain deceit." As the Apostle Paul

was preaching on Mars Hill, he began his sermon by talking

about the infinite creator, the God that made the worlds.

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as J passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I ~nto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwell;th not in temples m~de with hands; (Acts 17:22-24)

This immediately got the people's attention. We are in

the same situation today. In order to reach people that

have been heavily influenced by evolution, we must first

begin with the foundation, the creation. We can't

immediately quote John 3:16 because it sounds like a

foreign language to them. They have been so brainwashed

away from God by evolutic.nary philc.sophy that we must begin

with the basics. We must slowly pry open their closed

minds by getting them to answer the question, "Who is the

Creat.::or whcl made the world? ..

Al mc.st immediately after the time c·f Christ,

several gr ':'LlpS developed around Christianity that claimed

to be Christian. Some had pure motives and some had impure

melt i yes. Those with impure motives desired to dilute and

destroy the Christian teaching. For example, one of the

groups that developed was from Alexandria, Egypt. There

was a school in Alexandria that had teachers that tried to

reinstate Aristotle's philosophy into Christianity. St

CI~ment, who lived from approximately 150 to 215 A.D.,

taught in this Alexandrian school. He started one of the

early compromises that tried to bring the Almighty God of

the Bible down to the pantheist God of nature. VOLI see the

God of creation is above and outside of the creation

whereas the god of pantheism is in his creation and is

limited by the creation. Instead of him being over the

universe, he is like a major cog in the machinery but not

the man running the machinery. Clement had a very clear

intent ion of making 130d a pantheist Gc.d. Evolution is Just

part of a long war against God. The main idea is to bring

God down off His throne. Satan has always wanted to do

that and he hasn't given up yet.

Many in the Alexandrian school were of this

philosophy. They actually re-copied parts of the Bible to

be more in line with their beliefs and made what are known

today as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These have been

discredited and rejected by most Bible-believing Christians

because there are differences in these manuscripts and the

other manuscripts of the Bible. Many of the Alexandrian

manuscripts are older than the manuscripts used by the

Bible-believing Christians, yet older does not mean better.

It would only make sense that if a manuscript were accepted

as authentic by the believers that it would be used over

and over until it was worn out. Then a new copy would be

made. It would be checked extensively by the priests to

verify that all had been copied correctly. They would even

count the number of letters to verify that all was correct.

Then the old copy w6uld be destroyed. This process was

repeated many times as manuscripts became unusable. Those

manuscripts that were not accepted would not be used, and

therefore, would last longer: The Alexandrian manuscripts

are the source of many of the modern-day translations.

Instead of going to the "original " manuscripts, the modern

translators have been using the Alexandrian This results

in a perverting and watering down of the Scriptures.

Another very influential man in the Alexandrian

school was a man by the name of Origen. He was born

approximately 185 A.D. and died 256 A.D. Origen had a very

vehement desire to put the evolutionary theory of pantheism

into Christianity. He" especially thought that Genesis 1

and 2 needed to be changed. He taught that they weFe an

allegory, a myth. He said these two chapters were just a

story to try to explain some of the processes God used and

that they were not to be taken literally. The idea c.t

Genesis 1 and 2 not being literally scientifically accurate

and true probably has one of its major roots in the

teachings of Origen. He is a key man in the history of

The next man in this history of evolution is a man

by the name of Augustine. He was born appr,:,:..;imately 353

A.D. and died about 430 A.D. He is called St. Augustine by

the Catholic church. Augustine still plays a vital part in

the Catholic church doctrine. He would be the equivalent of

a theistic evolutionist today.

About 620 A.D., Mohammed, the founder of the

religion of Islam, hated the polytheism that was around him

at the time. One of his goals and desires was to develop a

monotheistic religion. He developed ari unusual mixture

between Christianity and judaism. He eventually became

very anti-Christian. He wanted a limited God of nature, a

pantheistic type of god. The gc.d of M.:.hammedism is not the

God of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. It is

a little pantheistic god of nature. Because of this, the

Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a

scientific fact because it fits so well with their

teaching. In the country of Turkey ( which is almost

totally dedicated to Mohammed) evolution is taught as fact.

In 1225 A. D., a man was born named Thc.mas Aquinas.

He was called "the angelic dc,,:tor." He cc.ntinued

Augustine's idea of the pantheist God. He was very

influential in reviving Aristotle's teaching in the

Catholic church. As a matter of fact, it became a law in

the Catholic church that you must teach Aristotle's

doctrine as far as the origin of the universe or you would

be treated as a heretic.

In the early 1600's, Galileo invented the

telescope. He looked at the moon and noticed the rugged

surface of the moon. He then said that the moon was not

smooth like Aristotle said it was. Aristotle had said back

in 400 B.C. that the moon was like a perfect smooth sphere,

a crystal ball to reflect the sunlight. Galileo even

published a book that stated that the moon wa~ not smooth.

Aristotle was also contradicted by Galileo on his theory of

gravity. Aristotle had said that heavier objects fall

faster than lighter objects. Galileo proved that to be

In the mid 1600's, Galileo, under penalty of death

by the Catholic church, had to recant his awful heresy of

teaching that the moon was not smooth. He had dar ed t.:.

suggest that the doctrines of Aristotle as taught by the

church could be wrong! He wrote a second book to say that

he Was wrong and that the moon was perfectly smoc,th. The

priests even refused to look through Galileo's telescope

because they said that it was demon possessed. The hold of

Aristotle's philosophy on the minds of the people of that

time was so strong that scientific progress was hindered.

We face the same thing today. The faulty teaching of

evolution is hindering scientific progress.

Thomas Aquinas was no doubt a very sincere man.

However, he was sincerely wrong. He was a very influential

person in the Renaissance which is called the "Great

He is often called the father of the A .... 'akening. II

F.:ena i ssanc e. This was a time for getting people to think

again. They began to be sceptical of religion in general

and the Catholic Church in particular.

The next influential character we come to in our

tracing of the history of evolution is Benoit de Maillet.

He was born in 1656 and died about 1738. He was very

anti-Bible and tried to influence anyone he could to not

bel ieve the Bible. He was very full of o':cul t ideas. He

' ....... y-ote a book which was his name spelled backward,

Telliamed. He was a very avid atheist, everl ut i ,:,n i st, and

material ist. He believed in a great infinite age I:' f the

earth. He was verx influential in furthering the ideas of

evolution, particularly· in the country of France.

Another man at this time was Maupertis, born 1698,

a

and died 1759. He was a physicist and a mathematician, and

was a close friend of Voltaire. Both of these men hated

Christianity with a passion and wanted to do anything they

could to discredit the Bible.

Voltair, born 1694 and died in 1798, was a deist

and was an c'pen enemy of Christianity. When he was five

years of age, he memorized "The Skeptics Poem", and on his

death bed he said, "I am abandoned by God and man. I shall

go to hell." He is also quoted as saying, "If God did not

exist, it would be necessary for man to invent him." Many

people in colleges today use this quote to pull people away

frc,m Christianity. Voltair is alse, qlloted as saying, "I

wish I had never been born." He is also said to have

scoffed at Sir Isaac Newtc'n. Newt':'n had been meditating on

Daniel 12:4 whio::h says, "BLtt thOll, 0 Daniel, ShLtt up the

words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many

shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

Newton said that he believed that someday man would go more

than 50 miles per hour. Voltair picked up on this and

laughed. He then travelled around preaching about the

ridiculc'us ideas in the Bible te, put SLlCh thoughts into

Newt ,::on's head. Voltair had a deist friend as a young man

named Abbe de Chateuneuf, a bachelor and probably a

During the French Revolution, Voltair tried to

establish a ten-day work week instead of a seven-day week

Just to try to get people away from the seven days of

c.,.. eat ion. This, of course, was a miserable failure. This

is Just an example of what he tried to do to get people

away from the Bible and from Christianity.

Another Frenchman during this time of turmoil of

the 1600 and 1700's was a man named Comte de

Buffon(1707-1788). He was the director of the French

botanical Gardens for fifty years. He was also a prolific

author. He 'wrote a 44 volume series on science called

Hist;·X of Nature. This is full of evolutionary ideas.

,d his writing before the French Revolution, he

was very careful not to do things that would offend the

He was very influential in spreading the

tyine of evolution around the world.

An,:,ther man that is very important as we trace the

history of evolution is Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of

Charles Darwin. He was born in 1731 and died in 1802. He

was an extremely fat person. In fact, he was so fat they

had to cut a curve in the dining room table so that he

could get up to the table. He was a medical doctor. He

was also very immoral. He had twelve legitimate children

and two illegitimate children. He was known to have had

many affairs. He was a great admirer of the French

philosopher, Rousseau, who was the chief philosopher of the

Darwin was a deist, not an atheist, but

was a strong opponent of Christianity. In 1794 he wrote a

book called Zoonomia, which contained many of the

evolutionary ideas that were later claimed by Charles, his

The United States and England were not yet ready

to accept the evolutionary ideas because there was still

such a strong Christian influence. About 55 years later,

his grandson, Charles, would get credit for modern ideas of

evolutic.n. Erasmus Darwin fC'Llnded the Lunar Sc.ciety in

Birmingham, England in the late 1700's.

I think it is not a coincidence that people who are

atheists or evolutionists frequently have a wicked

lifestyle or at least a lifestyle against the plain

teachings of the Bible. Therefore, evolution is an easy

way for them to Justify their lifestyle. the problem is

one of philosophy, not one of science. They don't want

there to be a God because of their wicked lifestyle. That

is their real problem.

The next man with an influential part in this

history of evolution Was Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, born in

1744, died in 1829. Lamarck wrote two famous books on

zoology, one in 1809 and one in 1815. He was a French

",theist. He was appointed by the French Revolutionary

government. He was very bitterly anti-Bible and anti­

Christian. He hated the Bible, especially the creation and

the f1 c,,:.d st or y. He was determined to give people an

alternative explanation for how the earth got here beside

the creation and the flood. He also was an immoral man.

He had six illegitimate children by three different women.

He taught a theory that giraffes had longer necks because

they would stretch their necks to reach the leaves higher

on the trees. Those that were not able to stretch would

simply die out in times of drought. Then the long necks

giraffes would pass that trait on to their children. This

is known as the "inheritance of acquired characteristics."

There is no biologist today that believes this theory.

Acquired traits are not inherited because they have no

effect on the genetic. matter.

was unwanted when he died.

Lamarck died in poverty and

One of the men greatly influenced by Lamarck was a

man named Charles Lyell. Lyell was born in 1797 and died

in 1875. He is called the father of modern geology. He

was a lawyer, not a scientist. He developed what is called

the I'geologic column. II This column is still taught in

every earth science classroom today_ The whole idea of the

geologic column is based on uniformitarianism, or the

present is the key to the past. This is mentioned in II

P9ter 3 where it says in the last days scoffers are going

to come and they will say all things continue as they were.

It goes on to say in II Peter 3 that they are willingly

ignorant of the creation and the flood. The flood explains

geology.. The present processes do not explain geology.

The Colorado River did not form the Grand Canyon. The

Grand Canyon was formed as the flood went down. Lyell took

the old philosophy of naturalism and applied it to earth

history. Sadly, many of the creationists of his day

accepted his philosophy. They thought it was time to

update the Bible and some how make the Biblical account of

creation include eons of time. Lyell cleverly trapped

Christians of his day with his erroneous teaching. He

wrote a bc.c.k called Principles c.f Geolc.gy. It was this

book that influenced Charles Darwin while he Was on his

vc.yage on the HMS Beagle many years later. Lyell was

D.rwin's friend and urged him to publish his book, Origin

of Species. Lyell had a determination to destroy the idea

of the Biblical flood in the minds of people. He prc.mc.ted

the teaching of Hutton. Each of these men Just built on

each other's sinking foundation. There was a movement in

the early 1800's to disarm the monarch system of

government. They saw that the Bible taught that you should

obey the king and therefore, the Bible stood in the way of

democracy. They thought that by disproving the Bible they

would be able to disarm the monarchists. They had

political goals, not scientific goals, for teaching

Llniformitarianism. Lyell often ridiculed what he called

"Mosaic geology. II He was very shrewd and therefore, never

openly atta<:ked the Bible. Henry Mory is in his book L,:'ng .

(·Jar Against God, pg. 55 says, "Lyell's dominating

motivation was his desire to undermine the authority of the

Bible. II

The next man We came to in tracing the history of

evolution is a man by the name of Charles Darwin. Darwin

was born in 1809 and died in 1882. He is most famous foY

two books that he authored. The se·: ond ':.ne was The Desc ent

of Man. The first one, and most famous, is The Origin of

Species Qy Means of Natural'Selection. This book also had

a subtitle called "The Preservation of the Favored Races in

the Struggle for Life." He took a five year voyage in the

1830's on the HMS Beagle. During that voyage, he read

extensively Lyell's book. This greatly influenced him to

think that the earth was millions of years old. When he

returned from his voyage, he was encouraged by Lyell to

publ ish a boc·k. Darwin wrote for many years, but never

published the book. Lyell realized that a man named

Wallace was going to beat Darwin to the punch in publishing

such a book on evolution. Lyell encouraged Darwin to go

ahead and publish his book. Darwin published it in 1859.

The Industrial Revolution was well under way and people

were looking for some way to Justify the cruelty that

accompanied this revolution. (Ch i 1 d 1 abor, sweat he.uses,

etc.) Darwin's book was Just what the world needed to

justify the cruel ruthless tactics of the industrial

r-evolut ion. Darwin had a theology degree.

deist, and later, very proudly an atheist.

He became a

There are many

stories of him repenting on his death bed, but there still

is much confusion on the issue.

The next key character in the history of evolution

Karl Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1883.

He is known as the father of Communism. Karl Marx was very

muo::h influenced as a youngster by a man Auguste Cc,mte.

Comte, along with Herbert Spencer, James Frazier, Edward

Taylor, and some o~hers, were ardent Darwinists. They

strongly promoted DarWin's teachings, particularly those on

the evolution of religion. They began teaching back then

that even monotheism (the belief in one God) was the result

of evolution. They said that man used to believe in many

.gods and gradually declined to Just one god. They taught

that religion actually evolved. This is a false teaching

that is still promoted today in universities.

Marx was a very egotistical man. He had a definite

hatred for God and the Bible. He was born into a rich

family. He was a good friend of Friedrich Engels, a

sc,eialist leader in England. They believed that struggle

is the means of development. Becau*e of this belief, they

thought that class struggle was good. By the time Darwin'S

book was published, Marx had already written several books

and developed his revolutionary ideas. Even though Marx

was rich, he claimed to take the cause of the poor class.

By the way, in every Communist country today, there are

still only two classes--the e~tremely rich and the

extremel Y POI:-}'". Communism does not solve the problem that

it claims it is going to solve; it only worsens the

problem. Because of the idea of development by class

struggle, Marx readily accepted Darwin'S book when it was

published in 1859. By December of 1859, Just· two months

after Darwin's book was published, Marx and Engels were

corresponding concerning Darwin's book. They said that it

was exactly what they had been waiting for to Justify their

class strLlggle. Marx strongly emphasized that

envirc,nmental influence, I ike Lamar,:k had discussed, (the

belief that certain traits that are acquired can be passed

on genetically to the next generation), could affect the

rate of evolution in humanity. He said that if the

envirc.nment were changed, pec'ple WC.Llld evc.lve faster. He

thought that evolution could be controlled or accelerated

then by handling factors in the environment.

two very famous books that radically changed the world:

The CommLlnist Manifestc. and Das Kapital.

poem one time, "I wish to avenge mysel f against the one whe.

rules above ... " and he has certainly accomplished that.

Because of Marx's doctrine of Communism, belief in God was

outlawed, Bibles were outlawed, and millions of people have

lost their lives in various countries around the world. On

Judgment Day, Marx will be responsible for the lives and

blood of millions of people. Marx, with his bitter hatred

toward God, developed Communism.

Let's go on in the "Who's Who· 11 in the evolutionary

We will continue in chronological order by their

birthdates, because the tangled web becomes rather

difficult to decipher. Each of these men were working with

each other or near each other. Sometimes they were not

aware of ottlers working in the same field. Sometimes they

were very close companions.

The next man ~e come to is Alfred Russell Wallace.

He was born in 1823 and died in 1913. He was a

contemporary with Darwin. He came up with several theories

such as the survival of the fittest. This was used by the

capitalists in the 1800's to Justify the annihilation of

anyone who did not "fit in." For instance, Rockefeller,

Carnegie, and some of those early tycoons, were ruthless in

their business practices because they based their business

practices on evolution. They said only the fittest can

survive, so we will be the strongest and take over. With

Rockefeller's Standard Oil company the way they used to

monopolize the market was by buying out all of the stations

in a particular town. Any stations that refused to sell

were literally "driven out of business." For instance, if

the price of gasoline was twenty cents a gallon,

Rockefeller wo~ld instruct his people to sell it for

fifteen cents a gallon for a few months, Just long enough

to put the competitor out of business. When the other

station would go out of business, he would have a corner on

the market and Jack his prices back up. The idea of

evolution actually had its modern beginning with Wallace.

Darwin is given the credit for it, but Wallace actually

published his book first, nearly a year earlier. He

emphasized a struggle for existence, the survival of the

fittest, and natural selection. Wallace had very little

education. He served at an apprenticeship for a while. He

read Thoma", Payne's book, The Age of Reason, as a teenager

and became very skeptical in matters of religion. He

blended right in with ideas of SOCialism, Marxism, and

anarchism. He was heavily influenced by Malthus' book, and

he believed in spiritism and the occult. Wallace was a

pantheist) whereas Darwin became more and more of an

atheist. They kind of split 9ver the idea of whether there

was really a God. Because of Wallace's spiritist,

pantheist, and occultist teaching of evolution, he could

really be considered the founding father of the New Age

movement. He lived in Malaysia for about eight years, and

watched the spiritist rituals that those people performed.

He developed many of his theories in that setting. The New

Age movement is nothing more than the old rebellion against

God and the belief in evolution, with a little Hindu and

Buddhist religion mixed in with it.

Let's continue our Journey through the history of

evolution. The next man we come to is Thomas Huxley. He

was born in 1825 and died in 1895. Huxley was called

"Darwin's bulldog." He actively prc.mc.ted Darwin's we.rk

after his publication of Origin ,:.f Species. He was very

strong in his beliefs, and an*ious for Christianity to be

Thomas Huxley did not claim to be an atheist.

He claimed to be an agnostic. He is the one that actually

made up the term "agnostic." He said that if there is a

God, it doesn't matter. God had no part in his life. He

was an English biologist and a writer. He taught that

ethics and morals had also evolved.

in the 1800's ,:alled Evolution and Ethics. He was very

much a t-ac ist. Evolution lends itself readily to racism,

which can be seen by the following quotes fiom Darwin and

!-iu;':l ey,

At some future period, not very distant as

measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ••• will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man, A. L. BLlrt Cc •• , 1874, p. 178)'

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average ne~ro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-Jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thc.ughts and not by bites. (Lay Sermons, Addresses and F.:eviews, Appleton, 1871, p. 20)

Darwin's notion that the various races were at different

evoluti.:.nary distances from the ape, with Negroes at the

bottom and Caucasian at the top, was not unique to him, but

rather Was almost universal among the evolutionary

scientists of the nineteenth century. Notice Huxley's

argument that blacks could not compete intellectually with

the Caucasians under equal and fair conditions. F~ac ism

started, or was greatly enhanced by Darwin and Thomas

Hu~;l ey. Huxley is the grandfather of two men who were also

famous in evolutionary circles today, Sir Julian Huxley and

Aldous Huxley. Thomas Huxley had been witnessed to on

several occasions. Here is one quote from the Encyclopedia

of Illustrations, #5230, entitled "Huxley's Sunday Talk,"

by J. B. Dengis,

A friend of mine was once on a parliamentary commission with Prof. T. H. Huxley. They happened to stay at a little country inn over Sunday. HLI~dey said te, my friend, "I suppe,se YOLI are going tc' ehLlrch this mc'rning?" "I am; I always go to church." "I know you do," said Huxley, "bLlt suppose this morning YOLI sit dc,wn and talk with me about religion--simple experimental religic'n." "I will," said my fr i end, "i f yc,u mean it."

They sat down together, and my friend out of a deep and rich experience told him of the Cross of Christ and pardoning love, and after three hours tears stood in Huxley's eyes; and he put out his hand and said, "If only I could believe that, I would be willing to give my right hand." What do you call that but intellectual imprisonment?

The next individual on our" Journey through the

history of evolution is Ernest Haeckel. He was born in

1834 and died in 1919. He was a German biologist and

ph i I osc'pher. He developed the "Biogenetic Law," or the

"Pecapitulat ion Theory." This thee,ry teaches that the

human embryo inside the mother's womb goes through the

different stages of eVcoluti,:,n, frc,m fish to reptile to

mammal to human. This has long since been disproven. It

is now known that there is no recapitulation. This theory

is used foy the justification for abortion. The human

embryo, the abortionists say, is not fully human yet and it

is okay to kill it because it hasn't yet reached the human

stage. I'm not saying that abortion started with

evol ut i cln. I am saying that evolution does serve to give,

in the abortionist's mind, some scientific .justification tel

abortic,n.

Haeckel was a advocate of Lamarck's theory, that

acquired characteristics could be inherited. He invented

all sorts of sketches or fabricated pictures that showed

the different embryos of animals, including man, and how

they were so similar. He later confessed that these were

I ies. These sketches were reprodLlced and are st ill

displayed in some textbooks. Haeckel became ':,ne of

Germany's ideologists fc,r racism, nationalism, and

imperialism. Probably mc,re than any other man, Haeckel is

responsible for the influence on a young man who was to

come later and radically change the world, Adolf Hitler.

In reading Haeckel's ideas and experiments, Hitler decided

that the strongest race was the one that was to survive.

His imperialism led to his belief that. the Germans were to

take over the world. Much harm as come to the world by

this man, Ernest Haeckel.

In the mid 1850's, there was a revival of the

BL\ddhist cult. It was co-founded by Colonel H. S. Olcott.

The goal of this was to unify the Buddhist. The name of

this revival was Theosophy. The Theosophy cult was also

founded by Madam Helena Blavatsky. The second statement in

their platform of doctrinal beliefs says, "The universe was

evolved, not created, and it functions according to law. 11

We are seeing a great revival of the New Age cult today.

Sigmund Freud is the next man in the great

influence for evolution and against Biblical Christianity.

He Was born in 1856 and died in 1939. He was an ardent

follower of Darwin. In 1915, he was convinced that

Darwin's and Lamarck's theories were right. He believed

that acquired traits could be inherited. He thoLlght that

mental disorders were simply leftov~r behaviors that had

bee~ appropriate in earlier stages of evolution. He also

believed in the Recapitulation Theory. Freud is known as

the father of modern psychology. Many of the teachings and

practices of psychology today are based on Freud's

observations that man is Just an animal and needs to be

treated as an animal.

The next man we come to is Sir Julian Huxley. He

was born in 1887 and died in 1975. He was the first

Director General of UNESCO (United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization). He was al SCI cine of

the founders of the American Humanists Association in 1933.

He was a pantheist and believed that nature is the god that

is to be worshipped. He is quc'ted as saying, "Darwin's

thecq"-y' is no longer- a theory, but a fact. It He is aIsl:l.

quoted as saying, "No supernatural" designer is needed. II He

believed that evolution could answer all of the problems ..

He was a leader of the New Age Movement until his death in

1975. It is reported by his nurse that on his deathbed, as

he looked up to heaven with a blank stare, he said, "So it

is true. II

His brother, Aldous Huxley, born in 1894, and died

1963, was a leader in the modern drug culture. He was an

atheist, a philosopher, and a strong advocate of

hallucinogenic drugs. Huxley is largely responsible for

the drug culture that developed in the sixties. He was c,ne

of the firs~ intellectuals to openly promote takinq drugs

as a way to expand your mind and your experience.

There are number of people on the list in the

twentieth century who have had an influence for evolution

and against Gc,d. Henry Fairfield Osborne, an American

anthropol,::ogist, was a leading evc,lutionist and an avid

During the first half of this century, he was the

director of the American Museum of Natural History. He

believed that the various stages of childhood for a

Caucasian were said to represent the lower races and how

high they had attained in evolution. For instance, he said

that the blacks are at the bottom, then the yellow races,

then the whites are at the top. Let me quote from

Osborne's book, The Evolution of Human Races, Natural

History magazine, Jan/Feb 1926, p. 129, "

The Negroid stock is eVen more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.

Evolution has broLlght the world so much trouble.

This is one of the key tools that Satan is using here in

the end times to bring the world under his dominion.

Shintoism is the state religion of Japan. It is a mixture

of Buddhism and ancient polytheistic myths about Japanese

people. Shintoism teaches that the Japanese are

descendants of the gods and are destined to rule the world.

They teach that the Emperor is from the "sun god, the

highest gc,d. It was Shintoism, based on evolution, that

was responsible for Japan's actions in World War II. They

were determined to take over and rule the world, Just like

Hitler was doing in Germany. Both of them were motivated

by a desire to help evolution along. This goes right back

to the Garden c,f Eden where Satan said, "Ye shall be as

gods." From the very beginning, man has had a desire to

take over the throne of God and Satan promotes that desire

by the teaching of evolution.

THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION

"-It has long been my contentic.n that evc.lution is

Just another religion. There is no empirical evidence to

back it up so it is certainly not a part of science. The

evolutionists say that man made God instead of God making

man. Who is right? In this chapter I would like to

discuss the evolution of religion or the religion of

evolution, which is it? The public schools have been

teaching for the last fifty years that religion has

evc.l ved. We have been taught that man started off

believing in many gods, worshiping the rocks, stars, etc,

the cave man philc.sophy, and that he gradually developed

monotheism (the belief in one God). Yet archaeology seems

to tell us that Just the opposite is true. It tells us

that man has always been a monotheist and worshipped one

God. All of the ancient cultures s~em to teach us just the

opposite of what we are being taught in our public schools

today.

Religion has not evolved. Man did not create God~

God created man .. Since eVolLltion is just a religion, it

should not be taught in public schools at taxpayers expense

unless all religions are going to be taught.

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that if a parent

or child objects to certain materials being taught in the

public schools, the child cannot be removed from the class

because that would violate his constitutional rights. The

court further decided that the objectionable course or

material would have to be removed. This case involved the

question of prayer and religion. The precedent can be

applied tc. se:" education c.r any other questionable

material. The ruling also said that no government building

or facility may be used to commit inhibitions or

hostilities to godly religion. There may some reading this

who may remember when prayer when was taken out c.f the

public school system. I was only in the fifth grade and did

not undergtand what was going on. Madeline Murray O'Hare

did not want her son made to pray in the public school.

She said that it was objectionable to her. She claimed

that that was an obvious case of the government adVancing a

religion at the taxpayers expense. She was very sUccessful

in getting prayer taken out of the public school system.

Of course, I dc.n't like what Madeline Murray O'Hare

stands for or what she did, but it does bring up an

interesting point. If evolution is Just a religion, then

it also should be taken out of the public schools. I wC'LlI d

like to see some legal action taken to get evolution taken

out of ~he public school system on the grounds that it is

,just a rei igion. The first step is to approach the school

board and request that they remove the objectionable

mater ial s. Step two is to go to the people who supply the

funds for the school, the county commission.

to take the issue to court.

Step three is

There are baSically four options in this issue.

The first option is to teach evolution only and ignore

creation or any other theories of the origin of the earth.

This is what is going on now in the public school system.

The option at the other end of the scale would be to teach

onl y cr eat ion. This is what was going on in 1925 in

Dayton, Tennessee. ·Tennessee had passed a law that made

the teaching of evolution a crime. A young biology teacher

in the small town of Dayton was encouraged to create a test

case by teaching evolution in spite of the law. The

teacher was arrested and tried. The now famc,us atheist

lawyer Clarence Darrow came in as defense for the side of

the teacher and evolution. Darrow said that it was unfair

to teach only one side of the is~ue. He said that it was

the height of bigotry to prevent students from learning

both sides of this issue. Even though Darrow lost the case

and the teacher was fined $100, his plea for equal

treatment was headed. Slowly the schools began to teach

the theory of evolution with the truth of creation.

We are now at the other end of the spectrum. The

tides have totally shifted and we are now teaching only

eVQlution. This is Scopes in reverse. The same bigotry

that they objected against they now condone since the tales

are turned. Even though they can, most public school

teachers don't mention creation. They have been told that

it is against the law to talk about creation because it is

a religious subject. Evolution is religious also.

There are two middle-ground options available in

this issue. The first wc,uld be to teach both evc,lution and

creation in the public school classrooms. This was passed

as law in the state of Louisiana, but was never enforced

because people contested that law. This was cc,ntested

because the idea of creation has religions connotations and

therefore, they contested, it should not be taught in the

public school system. They immediately claim the

"separation of church and state." This ideal is nc,t found

in the Constitution. It is found in Jefferson's writings.

Even if this true, the courts decided that teachers have

the right to give any number of theories on the origin of

the earth.

The n~xt opti6n is to leave both of these beliefs

out of the public schOOl system. I taught high school

science and mathematics. I know that you can teach

students many things without mentioning origins and where

we came from. It is possible to leave the issue totally up

to the home or to the church.

The public school system is right now using option

number one, teaching dogmatically evolution. They would

never dream of switching to option four of teaching only

creation. Since option two of teaching both has not

worked, r believe we are left with option three. I believe

we should just leave both beliefs out of the public school

system. Madeline Murray O'Hare had a very valid point.

is not right to use tax dollars to promote religion, any

rei igic'n, in the publ ic schc,e,l system.

It

Webster defines a religion as "a belief in a divine

c,r super-human power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped

as the creator of the universe." What created the

universe? Was it blind chance, evolution? If so, then

blind chance is their creator and they worship chance.

Time and matter become the gods of the evolutionist. If

you begin taking away time from the evolutionist by 8aying

that the earth is young, that is like taking a pacifier out

of a baby's mouth. If Webster's definition of religion is

correct, then evolution is definitely a part of religion,

nelt sc i en.: e. I taught science for many years, and I am not

against real science. Hc,wever, we have entered the real m

of religion when we begin saying that the earth came into

being out of nothing.

There is a wealth of information on this subject.

Let me share what a few evolutionists have said about

evolution. Sir Arthur Keith, an avid evolutionist, said,

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it

because the only alternative is special creation and that

is unthinkable." This reveals quite a bit about the

evoILltic,nists. T.hey believe it only because they do nc,t

like the option of special creation. L. H. Matthews, the

evolutionist who wrote the preface to the 1971 edition of

Darwin's book, said, I'Belief in the theory of evolution was

exactly parallel to ~he belief in special creation with

evolution merely a satisfactory faith on which to base our

interpretation of nature." Evolution is a faith, a

rei igic,n. Pierre Grasse, the French biologist, said,

"Scientists should destroy the myth of evolution." L. H.

Lipsc,me, the British physicist said, "In fact, evc,lutic,n in

a sense became a scientific religion. Almost all

scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend

their observations to fit in with it."

Evolution without a question is a religion. It is

a religion of humanism. Either man is the ultimate king of

the world, or God is the ultimate king of the world.

Humanism is the religion of man being the ultimate.

Humanist Manifesto One says, "Humanism is a philosophical,

religious, and moral point of view as old as human

civilization itself." They admit-right up front that it is

reI igioLlS. They go cln tel say, IIIn 1933 a grc'Llp elf 34

liberal humanists enunciated the philosophical and

religic,us principles that seemed tc' them fundamental. They

drafted Humanist Manifesto One,-which for it's time was a

radical document. This document was concerned with

expressing a general religious and philosophical outlook

that rejected Orthodox and dogmatic positions and provided

meaning and direction, unity and purpose to human life. It

was committed to reason, science, and democracy. II It goes

on to say that "if no deity will save LIS, we must save

ourselves. II Humanism without a question is religious.

Humanists admit to this fact. Here are a few different

statements from Humanist Mani festo 1 ik 11 that fLlrther

illustrate the religious nature of evolutionism: (the

numbers correspond to the actual statement number from

Humanist Mani festo 1 and 11 by Prometheus Boc,ks edited by

Paul Kurtz) The first statement is "religious humanists

regard the universe as sel f-exist ing, nc,t created." They

are calling themselves "religious humanists." Humanism is

a religion. Here in the foundational document of humanism,

we see that they regard the universe as self-existing and

nc,t created. In c,ther words, they believe in evcolution.

Matter has always been here and the earth created itself.

The second statement is "humanism believes that man is a

part of na~ure and that he has immerged as a result of a

continuous process." Again referring plainly to evolution.

It could be easily proven that the foundation of humanism

is evc,lution and humanism is a reI igion. Therefore, the

teaching of evolution in the tax-supported public school

system is the fostering and furthering of a religion. The

only religion being promoted at the taxpayers expense is

the religion of humanism. We need to put a stop to that.

The third statement in the Humanist Manifesto says "holding

an organic view of life, humanists find that traditional

dualism of mind and body must be rejected." With the

phrase "an organic view of life", they are saying that

evolution is the way we got here. The fourth statement

says, "We are pr,:)du.:ts of a gradual development. II IIGr adual

development" again refers to evolution. The eighth

statement in the Humanist Mani fest", says "Rei igie,us

humanism considers the complete realization of human

personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its

development and fulfillment in the here and now." Again,

they refer to their philosophy as "religious humanism."

The ninth statement says, "In place of the old attitudes

involved in warship and prayer, the humanist finds his

emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life

in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being." The

twelfth statement says, "Religious humanists aim to faster

the creative in man and encourage aChievements that add to

the satisfactions of life." The thirteenth statement

begins "R~ligious humanism maintains that all associ.tions

and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life."

The last paragraph of Humanists Manifesto One says "So

stand the theses of religious humanism." That is the gist

of the Humanist Manifesto.

We go on now the the Humanist Manifesto Two written

by Paul Kurtz and Edwin Wilson. It says "salvationism

still appears as harmful." Read this carefully. The idea

here is to teach people that Christians are the enemy and

that we are standing in the way of progress. I believe we

as Christians need to be aware of this message.

the programs on television are examples of Hollywood's

definite desire to discredit Christianity. Y':'LI will nc,t

see a preacher portrayed as a God-fearing man. You will •

see him portrayed as a wild-eyed fanatic killing people, or

stealing money from the church or some other evil deed.

You will never see the truth in the Hollywood movies about

Christianity. There is a deliberate war being waged

against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Other reI igic,ns such as Hinduism and Buddahism are taught

~s being okay, even in the public schools. But the idea of

bringing in Christianity is utterly despised.

The HLlmanist Mani festc, T\<Jo:' gc,es on tc' say "any

account of nature should pass the test of scientific

eviden,:e. In our Judgment, the dogmas and myths of

traditional religion do not do so." If they really mean

that "the account of nature should pass the test of

scientific evidence", they shOUld examine and see if

evolution will pass the test of scientific evidence. In

order for something to be scientific, it has to be

observable. Anything outside the realm of observation is

not scientific. Fc'r sc'mething t,:, be scientifi,:, it mLlst be

testable. There is no.observation to back up evolution and

no test has devised to demonstrate it. If evolution

occurred in the past, it should have been preserved for us

in the fossil record. We have trillion of fossils, yet we

have absolutely no evidence of evolution ·occurring in the

past. There is nothing going on in the present that gives

evidence of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould and .Nyles Eldredge, two famous

evolutionists, said, "At the higher level of evolutionary

transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism

h~s always been in trouble though it remains the official

positie,n cif most wester-n evolutionists. Smc,oth

intermediates between basic kinds are almost impossible to

construct. Even in thought experiments, there is certainly

n.:. evidences for them in the fc.ssil recc •. rd. Cur ious

mosaics like archaeopteryx do not count." In his review of

steven Stanley's book Macro-Evolution, D. S. Woodruff said,

"F.:.ssil species remain unchanged throughout mc.st of their

history and the record fails to record a single example of

·a transition." There is no evidence in the fossil re.:ord

In a Newsweek article entitled "Is Man a

Subtle Accident?", N.:.vember 3, 1980, it is said, "The

missing link between man and ape, whose absence has

comforted fundamentalist since the days of Darwin, is

merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom

creatures. The more scientists have searched for the

transitional forms that lie between species, the more they

have been frustrated." There have been no missing links.

The entire chain is missing!

Evolution is a religion. It does not fit the

criteria of science. It is not observable. There is no

observation for evolution in the past or in the present.

Stephen J. G':oLlld says in Natural History The Peturn of

Hopeful Monsters, "The fossil record with its abrLlpt

transitions offers ne. support' for gradual change. All

paleontologists know that the fossil record contains

precious little in the way of intermediate forms.

Transitions between major groups are characteristically

abrupt." If the definition of science is observation,

classification of data, and experimentation, where is the

observation for evolution? Evc.lution is a religic.us faith.

If the evolutionists want to believe in evolution, they are

free tel dCI so. We live in America which is a free country.

We are free to choose what we want to believe. What I am

upset about is the fact that their faith is being taught as

science in the public school system at my expense as a

taxpayer. That upsets me greatly!

Romans 1:21 says, "Because that, when they knew 130d, they glc'rified him nc.t as G.:.d, neither were thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also ~ave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, and to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is again nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their eYYCey which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain Go~ in their knOWledge ... "

This last statement says it all.

deliberate attempt to eliminate God. I tis time f .:or

thinking people to dethrone evolution and get some common

sense back in the science class.

I write letters to the editor very frequently.

Here is one published some time ago that SLims LIP my

feelings on the subject.

Evolution isn't science

Remember the story of tailors who kept asking for more silk and gold to make a royal suit for the king? the deceitful men were pocketing the goods and giving the king imaginary clothes. Anyone who couldn't "see" the splendor of these "clothes" was obviously not intelligent.

To even dare to suggest that His Highness was not gorgeously arrayed was to invite a barrage of ridicule and scorn. And so the entire kingdom was duped into silence until a small "ignorant" boy cried oLlt, "The fdnd hath no clc,thes!"

It is still true today that a few scoundrels can cajole the masses into silence about the obvious using ridicule and derision. For example: It is obvious that evolution didn't, doesn't and won't happen. Design demands a designer. Frogs don't turn into princes, and "bib bangs" make big messes not neat, orderly universes. There are no facts to support evc,ILltionism. It stands royally naked.

Over 90 percent of the "ignc'rant" masses believe that the world was created by God. Thousands of taxpayers in this county resent their tax money supporting the humanist religion of evolution in our schools. In spite of this, Katie Knight (science curriculum supervisor in Escambia County) told me that only one person is objecting to the teaching of evolution in our 51: hC10l s ••. Me.

How long will we let them steal our gold and give us nothing in return? They steal our kids' class time and brain power promoting this fairy tale of evolution while they keep asking for more gold.

Review" the books this year, and voice your complaint. Textbooks are being selected now. Let's get back to teaching real science and stop letting them tell us that evolutionism must be included.

It is not science and is not even remotely related to sc ience., Even though the sc,,: ial ist tailors insist I'm the one who is blind and give evolLltic,nism royal treatment, I still say, "The king (evolution) hath no clothes!"

THE EFFECTS OF EVOLUTION

Evolution is probably one of the most important

subjects facing us today because of the world view and

lifestyle that it breeds. A person's belief that he is a

creation of God involves a particular world view that will

make him live a certain way. If he believes that he is a

creation of chance, that there is no God, then that will

produce a lifestyle or world view that will have certain

consequences on his life.

Who cares anyway? Why is this subject so

important?

I'd like to begin by saying that the subject is

very dear to my heart. I'm both glad and sad to be able to

discuss the topic of creation/evolution in the Bible. I'm

glad because I love the Bible and the God of the Bible and

I'm honored to be able to share my faith in God's

incredibl e bc.ok. I'm glad because we have freedom in this

country that allows us to discuss topics like this. Many

other countries do nc.t even allc.w a discussion on this

subject. You have to accept the state opinion. America is

headed that way, I fear. But I'm glad that right now in

America we have the freedom to discuss the contradictory or

conflicting religions of creation and evolution. I'm gl ad

because discussions of this type will force people to take

a stand on the issue. You either believe one side or the

c.ther. There is no middle ground in this case.

But I am very sad because many other countries

don't allow this type of discussion on creation and

evolution. Many millions of my brothers in the faith have

given their lives and fortunes for the Blessed Book, the

Bible. I'm sad because it lo~ks like many more will have

to do the same in the next few years~ the way things are

going. I'm also sad because those who reject the words of

this Blessed Book are missing the greatest joy known to

man, fellowship with God. They are also missing the real

reason and purpose of life. If the words of the time-

tested Book are true, those who reject them and the

forgiveness they offer are doomed to face God and give an

account of their sin before their Creator. God will be

their Judge, on that day, whereas He will be my Father on

that day. This topic is personal for me; it's not Just

academic. If someone says that the Bible is a myth and is

not true, or that the doctrine of evolution is true, and

the Genesis account of creation is false, they are

attacking the very foundation of my faith. Jesus said that

the creation of Adam and Eve was "the beginning." (Matt.

19:4) It would be like saying that my Father is a liar.

Calling Genesis a myth, or creation a myth is like saying

slanderous things about my mom or dad or wife or family.

It will be hard for me not to get emotionally involved in

this topic.

We need to remember Aristole's dictum. Aristotle

said

If a document is being questioned, the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself. One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inerrancies.

There are basically two choices in this argument.

Choice number one.is that the.material universe that we see

made itself out of nothing for no reason. Then, through a

long proeess of eve,lution the di fferent animals and man

developed as we see them today.

Choice number two is that there is an infinite,

all-pe,werful, all-wise God whc, created this universe that

we see for some special reasons. There are those who try

to make a middle ground position called theistic-evolution.

'This says that God cre*ted the matter and helped evolution

along at critical points like the origin of life and things

1 ike that. That is an indefensible position.

The choices are either the universe made itself or

Gc,d made it. Both are in the realm of religion. F'ec'p 1 e

that believe in evolution want to make you think that what

they believe is a scientific fact. Nothing could be

farther from the truth. These people aye either extremely

optimistic or just bold-faced liars. Evolution is not a

scientific fact. It actually is not even a good theory.

It is Just a hypothesis.

Actually, evolution fits into the realm of

Webster's definition of religion says "belief in

a divine or super-human power to be obeyed and worshiped as

the creator and ruler of the universe." If this process of

evolution created and rules the universe, then that is the

super-human power that the evolutionists worship. Many

people down through the years have admitted that evolution

is just a religion. Some still won't today because they

don't understand the subject. For instance, Sir Arthur

Keith, the British biologist, said "Evolution is unproved

and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative

is special creation, and that is unthinkable." L. H.

Matthews, the man who wrote the prefa':e to the 1971 edition

c,f Charles Darwin's boc,k, The Origin c,f Species, said, "The

belief in the theory of evolution was exactly parallel to

belief in special creation, with evolution merely a

s~tisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of

nature." It is a faith. Pierre Grasse, a French

biologist, said, "Scientists should destroy the myth ,:,f

evc,lution."· The British physicist, L. H. Lipsome, said,

l'In fact, evolution became in a sense, a scientific

religion. Almost all scientists have accepted it, and many

are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it."

Evolutionists can rant and rave all they want and say that

evolution is a proven fact, when actually there is not one

bit of scientific evidence to back up macro-evolution. By

that I mean major changes between kinds of animals.

Micro-evolution is small little changes where there

is no change from one kind of organism to anbther.

Actually, evolution would be a bad term to use. Micro-

evolution is only variations within the kind. It proves

foresight of the Creator in providing His creatures with

the ability to adapt--within limits--to their environment.

I don't question that variation exists, I just interpret

the evidence as part of God's design.

I'll give you just one example to help you

understand the difference. Let's suppose we let loose five

hundred canaries on an island. The only food for the

canaries to eat on that island are nuts with a relatively

tough shell arc,und.them. Only the canaries that had a

tough beak would be able to eat the nuts and survive. The

others would starve to death. Therefore, those that had

the tougher beaks would be able to reproduce the next

gener at i c'n. If we came back to that island in about two

hundred years, we would find that all of the canaries on

the island have tough beaks. That is not evolution. That

is simply variation. You would still have canaries. The ,

trait of having a tough beak was in the genetic structure

to begin with. Nothing new has been added. We have only

selected a certain portion of the population to survive.

That is variation, not evolution. Those canaries will

never, given all the time you want, will never change into

elephants, or dinosaurs, or trees, or tomatoes. If they

did, that would be macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is

small little variations between the species that have been

in the genetic structure by. It has nothing whatsoever to

do with the terms that are used today. about evolution.

Let me quote just a few more things here. In

Scientific America, May, 1984, Allen Goode said,

The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

You can "spe.:Lllate" and say that it's possible all

you want, but that is a religion. That's your faith.

Don't tell me that is science. You cannot prove that. If

you want to believe that, that is fine. This is America.

Yc.u can bel ieve whatever you want to bel ieve, but don' t

tell me that is science, and don't use my tax dollars to

teach other kids in the public schools that that is

science. That's nonsense. If you think that it is really

important to teach evolution to the young people, then go

start yourself a private school, charge tuition, and teach

evolution to those who want to pay to come and learn it.

But it is deceitful, wrong, and wicked to use the public's

tax money to promote this religion of evolution in our

publ i.: schc.ols. We've got to put a stop to it.

Let me quote Just a few more here. David Kits, in

"Paleont.:.l.:.gy and Evolutionary Thc.ught" magazine, said,

"EvolLltion, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it,

cannot be detected within the life time of a single

observer. II It cannot be detected. It is not part of

science. It is just a religion. Here is a quote from

Myer's bc'c,1: Systematic and Origin of Species, "Darwin never

really did discuss the origin of species in his On the

Origin of Species". Collin Patterson, the curator at the

British mLlseum of natural history said, "No one has ever

prc,dLlced a species by mechanisms of natural selectic,n. No

one has gotten near it."

The mechanisms for evolution that they try to tell

us works so well are mutations and natural selection. No . one has ever produced a new species by· those means.

Evolution is a religion. If evolutionists want to believe

it, that is fine. But that is Just their faith. I want to

believe that God created it and that is my faith, and I

readily admit it.

Many say "We can't mix religion and the public

schools." In the first place, that is a faulty argument.

The public schools desperately need some religion. They

were started by religious institutions. There is nothing

wrong with putting our religion in the public schools.

The second argument that many people say is "Well,

you can't mix church and state." That is not found

anywhere in the constitution. That is in Jefferson's

wr it ings, "The Separat ie,n of Church and State." The

constituti,::.n says that the government ,:an make no law

respecting an establishment of a religion or hindering the

free exercise thereof. Teaching our young people that we

evblved from monkeys in hindering th~ religion of

Christianity. It's causing them to doubt their faith, and

it needs to be eliminated. The first amendment goes

against the teaching of evolution. It is a hindrance to

religious activity. Evolution is just a religion. We must

establish early in the discussion that the

creation/evolution question cannot be scientifically

resolved because both are religious faiths. They are

dogmas. They are what you believe.

People come in to this argument having already

decided what they want to believe based on their lifestyle.

If a person has a wicked lifestyle and wants to get rid of

God some how, then it is only natural that he would choose

the evolutionaiy idea to try to leave God out.

By way of giving just a little more fact that

evolution is just a religion, and not scientific, Steven J.

Gould, a noted evolutionist, said in

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions, offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms. Transitic,ns between ma.jc,r groups are characteristically abrupt. (KJV: GET BOOK TITLE)

Evolution is their faith; they believe it because that is

what they want to believe. In Newsweek magazine, "Is Man a

Subtle Accident?", (Nov. 3, 1980),

The missing link between man and ape, whose absence has comforted fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whc,le hierarchy of phantom creatLtres. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.

There are no transitional forms between species

because that is not the way we got here. Gould and

Eldr idge in F'aleobie.graphy (KJV; GET TITLE), said,

At the higher level c.f evc.lutic.nary transition between bas~c morphological design, gradualism has always been in trouble. Though it remains the official position of most western evolutionists, smc'oth intermissic.ns between different animals are almost impossible to construct. Even in thought experiments, there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record. Curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do n.:.t count.

In his ~eview of steven Stanley's book Macro-

evolution D. S. Woodruff, said, "Fossil species remain

unchanged throughout most of their history and the record

fails to contain a single e.ample of a significant

transition." There aren't any e.amples.

Don't fall for the statement that evolution is a

proven fact. It is absolutely not. It is their religion

versus my religion. I will quickly admit that what I have

is a faith. I cannot prove creation and you cannot prove

evolution. If We approach it on the common ground that

both ideas are religious, it will make a lot more sense.

It is not science versus religion. Don't let them use that

phrase when they talk about the controversy of creation

versus evolution. It is not scien.:e versus religic'n; it is

religion versus religion. Both of them are simply

religious beliefs.

The effect of these religious beliefs has always

been of interest to me. If We teach our kids in public

schools that they are merely animals, then they will act

like animals. We should not be surprised. If we teach kids

in school that they are a creation of God, that God is

their creator, and will some day be their judge, we can

exp'ect their behavior to be di fferent because ,:,f their

basic philosophy.

The teaching of evolution is important because,

number c,ne, it affects our society. Many people down

through history in the name of evolution, have had sOme

dramatic effects on our society. Ad c, I f Hit I er, for

instance, was an avid evolutionist. In order to comprehend

Hitler's reasoning, one must go back to evolution to

understand why he did the things that he did, and thought

the way he thought. Hitler slaughtered the Jews and hated

the blacks because he was an evolutionist. He thought it

was his duty to aid evolution in improving the human race.

He taught and believed that each of the different races in

the world were actually different species of man, and that

it Was the job of the superior species (Germany) to

annihilate the inferior species. In the name of evolution,

Hitler closed down the Christian schools in Germany in the

early 1930's. He began indoctrinating the people heavily

with the idea of the "German superior race", saying the

because of evolution they had evolved further and it was

their duty to rule the world.

Let me give you a quote here. Sir Arthur Keith, in

his book Evolution and Ethics, (19471, page 10, said,

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but as millions know to their costs, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the national "front" of Europe is only the evolLltionary "front;" he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.

Hitler was an, evc,lutic,nist and it was the crazy doctrine of

evolution that is fundamentally responsible for World'War

II.

In Japan, the same thing was going on with the

Shintu reI igic'n. This teaches that the Japanese pe':'ple

evolved from gods and it was their destiny to rule the

world. Japan and Germany gc,t together and we had an awful

time in World War II.

Yes, the controversy and debate of

evolution and creation has a tremendous influence on our

society.

Joseph Stalin was another evolutionist.

here from the Impact article, published by the Institute

for Creation Research in EI Cajon, California, October,

1987, Impact Article #172, entitled "Stalin's Brutal

Faith."

One of the men that had a profound impact on Joseph Stal in when he was Just a YC'Lmg persc'n was the man Charles Darwin and his book The Origin of Species. At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.

G. Glurd,Hdze, a friend c,f Stalin's relates, "I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment of silence, he said, "You know, they are fooling us. There is no god."

I was astonished at these words. heard anything like it before.'

I had never

"How can you say such things so-so!' I exclaimed.

"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagined, and you will see that all of this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.

, "What boc,k is that?' I enquired.

"'Darwin. You must read it,' Jc,seph impressed cln me.

A few pages later, another individual was reflecting on

stalin's youthful pursuits, and he added the following,

... In order to ,disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, We had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and the age of the earth and be able to prove them in argument. We had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's writings.

Joseph Stalin, in the name of evolution and to help purify

the F:ussian race, was responsible' for kill ing sixty mill ion

of his own people during his reign of terror. We are still

digging up mass graves of people that were slaughtered by

Stal in.

Communism also has its roots in evolution. Let me

quote some more here from the Impact Article, 172,

"Stalin's Brutal Faith," "As early as December 12, 1859,

only two months after the Origin of Species was published,

Frederic,k Engles wrote to f(arl Marx, "Darwin, whom I am

just now reading, is splendid." About a year later,

December 19, 1860, Karl Marx, the father of communism

responded, "During my time of trial these last few weeks, I

have read all sorts of things, among others, Darwin's book

of natural selection. Although it is developed in the

crude English style, this is the book which contains the

basis i,n natural history for our view." To c,ne Ferdinand

LaSalle, he wrote on January 16, 1861, "Darwin's book is

very impc,rtant and serves me as the basis in natural

science for the class struggle in history." Zirkle that

Marx wanted to dedicate "Das Capital" to Darwin. Harvard's

Stephen J. Gould, an intense and modern spokesman for

evolution, corroborates that he saw Darwin's copy of Marx's

first copy inscribed by Marx, describing himself as a

sincere admirer of the English naturalist, Darwin. SClmeClne

credits Vladimar Lenin with the following commentary on

Darwin, "Darwin put an end to the belief that the

animal/v~getable species bare no relation to one another

except by chance and that they were created by God and are

hence immutable. II Communism has its roots in evolution.

The effects that evolution has had on our society,

just with the three that I've mentioned here, Hitler,

Stalin, and Communism, are incredible. The human lives

that have been lost cannot be calculated. Nor can the

money that has been spent fighting communism and Nazism be

calculated. It staggers the imagination to think of the

effects that evolution has had on our society. Creation

versus evolution is an extremely important discussion and

debate. We are setting the trap for young people by

teaching them evolution in school. We are destroying our

own future by presenting this ridiculous doctrine as a

scientific fact. The effect on society alone is

tremendous.

The philc.sophy of or igins that a person chooses

also has an effect on many other decisions he or she makes.

The people that are divided on whether they believe that

abortion is right or wrong are generally divided intp the

same groups that form over the issue of creati6n and

evolutic.n. If a person believes that we are a creation of

God, then of course, abortion is wrong. If a person

believes that evolution is true, that we Just evolved with

blind chance, then abortion would be fine. The abortion

issue really needs to be argued on creation/evolution

ground first. The same cc.uld be said for many c.ther issues

of life like euthanasia, drugs, teen sex, homosexuality,

etc.

Secondly, I think evolution not only affects our

society, it affects our modern science. One of the things

that we try to teach students is what is called the

"scientific method." There are basically four steps

involved in the scientific method. There are basically

four steps in the scientific method: observation,

experimentation, classification of data, and conclusion.

It is extremely importaAt that scientists learn to us~ th~

"scientific method," particularly observation and

experimentation.

scientists.

They need to learn how to be good

We take our science classes and try to teach them

the unobservable thing of evolution. Evolution has never

been c.bserved in the present; it has never been observed in

the past. There is no record in the fossil record for

evc.lutic.n. There is no observation for this doctrine and

it does not belong in science. It is part of a religion.

There is no experimentation for evolution.

experiment, show me evc.lLltion happening. All they have

been able to show so far are genetic changes that have been

neutral or negative. There has never been an increase in

genetic matter or genetic structure.

We have developed, for instance, through the fruit

fly experiment, that went for many years, flies with no

eyes, fl ies wi th red eyes, f1 ies with rumpl ed wings, f1 ies

with no wings, but never anything but another fly. It was

always a fly that was less likely to survive in the wild.

How well could a fly that couldn't fly survive?

Evolution teaches that things gradually increase,

and yet there is no experimentation to back it up.

has e~ey done one exp~riment to prove any phase of macro­

evolution at all.

The effect that evc.lutic.n has on science, I think

is devastating. America is rapidly losing ground in the

world market in our science stLldents. We are turning out

students that many other countries are able to beat in

academic scores and academic knowledge because we waste so

much class time and textbook time on this dumb idea of

evolution. It cannot be proved. There is no observation.

There is no experimentation. It does not belong in the

It has a tremendous effect on our science classroom.

scientific program. It hinders right thinking.

students, "Hey, you are going to be a scientist.

We teach

Now only

bel ieve what you can c,bserve." But yet we teach them

evc,lution, which we cannc,t c,bserve. That is absurd.

waste a tremendous amount of money trying to prove

evc,l ut ion.

We

On the trip to the moon, they were so concerned

that there might be some type of bacteria life on the moon.

They spent extra money to isolate the moon-rocks when they

got them in the spacecraft, and when they got them back on

earth. They will do the same with all the other planets.

They wi 11 say, "Oh, there might be 1 i fe there. We need to

protect those rocks." One of the astronauts offered to eat

some of the moon dust on the way back to prove that there

was no life on it and that it was perfectly sterile. Bring

back a Mars rock or a Jupiter rock, I'll eat it or lick it.

There is no life on the other planet. Life doesn't evolve.

There is no evidence for evolution and it wastes a lot of

our money because they've got the wrong thinking. They

thought the moo~ was millions of years old, so they put

giant landing pads on the spacecraft. They wasted a lot of

money because they thou~ht the cosmic dust would be so de~p

on the moc,n. The cosmic dust layer indicated that the moon

was only six or seven thousand years old.

this in further detail later in the book.

We will discuss

Christians need to stand LIp fc'r what is right. I

believe God's Word is the truth, and all real scientific

evidence validates it.

' . . ,

TIME--WHAT IS IT AND HOW OLD

IS THE EARTH?

Believe it or not, one of the most important

subjects that needs to be addressed in the creation-

evoi"ution controversy is the subject of time, How c.l d is

the earth? Is the earth and universe six or seven thousand

years old as the Bible seems to indicate, or is it billions

of years old as the evolutionists. claim? If the earth is

not old, if it is only six or seven thousand years old, as

I contend that it is, that ends the argument for evolution,

There can be nco evc.lution in such a short time frame. Time

is absolutely essential to the evolutionists. If a person

starts trying to prove the fact that the earth is only six

or seven thousand years old, the evolutionists get

extremely defensive. They will bring up many different

qLlest ions such as: What abc.ut carbc.n dat ing? What about

the dinosaurs? What about cave men? What about the

geologic features of the earth, etc. I will try to answer

these questions as well as many others later in this book.

First we will look at the subject of time. Lack of

billions of years is the Achilles' heel to evolution. If

there isn't a lot of time, the argument is absolutely over.

Time is essential to the evolutionist. Their entire

argument is built on the premise that there is plenty of

time.

How old is the earth? First of all, let's discuss

"What is time anyway?" Time is a measurement that we use

as humans here on earth to measure the rate at which things

decay. Time is a human element that does not affect God.

It's difficult for us to understand how there can be no

time in heaven. How can there be anc,ther dimension? We

tend to think that this is April 28, 1990 (or whatever date

it is) in heaven. This is the most common mistake people

make when thinking about God. God is not limited by time.

There is no time at all in heaven. God is the same

yesterday, today, and forever because He is in a different

dimension then we are. Right away somec,ne will say, "Now

that Just doesn't make sense. Everything is affected by

time." Be careful with statements like that. You are

trying tc, put human limitatic,ns on God. God dc,es not have

any human limitations. We are the ones locked in time and

space, not God. Heaven and eternity are not things w~ can

comprehend while we are locked in flesh. An example of

this wc,uld be the stc,ry where Paul was stc,ned to death

outside the city of Lystra. Paul went to heaven where he

got a fe,retaste c,f eternity. He 2.'!!." Heaven! ! !

God said, "I'm sorry, Paul, you must go back down to earth.

I'm not done with you yet." So, Paul went back down as

they were dragging his body out of the city to throw it on

the garbage heap. He crawled into that body again and

arose from the dead. He said fC'Llrteen years later, "I knew

a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the

body; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God

knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven." (II

Cc.r. 12:2) He said that there he saw things that were not

lawful for him to utter. I believe what happened there was

that he saw things that he could not describe to his

listening audience because they were still bound in their

human bodies. If you were talking to a blind man and you

were going to try to explain to him the different colors of

the rainbOw, you would be wasting your time. He cannot

understand the differences. You cannot expl ain sounds c.r

music to a person who has been deaf all of his life. You

just won't get the information into his mind. There are

five entrances into the human mind. We call those the five

senses. We think that God is limited to those five. There

may be thousands or millions of things beyond our

comprehension. To say that it is 1990 in heaven "is to put

human limitations on God. I think that is a very foolish

thing to do.

What time is it in heaven? Let's imagine that you

are in a hel icc.pter above the Grand Canyc.n. As you hover

up there, (we'll imagine that you have the capacity to

hover for days and days at a time), you notice through your

telescope that some people are launching a raft at

beginning of the canyon. About thirty minutes later,

another group of people launch a raft. Thirty minutes

later, a third group of people launch a raft. Every thirty

minutes a new group of people starts their journey through

the Grand Canyon on a raft. None of the groups can see

each other because of the twists and bends of the river as

it goes through the Canyon. They cannot see the group in

front c.f them or behind them. As far as they are

cc.ncerned, they're all alone. However, YOll, in your

helicopter, are able to see all of the groups at the same

time. You can see the one at the beginning of the race

that left four days ago, and you can see the group that is

Just now leaving.

Each one of the groups has a different perspective

of the canyon. Each one of them sees a different section

of the canyon. They are locked into position. They

cannot decide to Jump ah~ad fifty miles or to Jump back

fifty miles. They have to go with the flow, so to speak.

You are in the same position here on earth as "far as time

goes. We are locke~ into 1991 right now. We will be here

for a year, then we will be locked into 1992. We cannot

speed it up or sle.w it down regardless of what we de •.

He.wever, God is not in our time with us. He is above time.

God is the one in the helicopter, so to speak. He can see

the beginning and the end and the middle all

simultaneously. That is absolutely beyond our

comprehension. We don't understand that at all, but by

faith we have to believe that because God revealed Himself

to us as being outside of time. He is omniscient, knows

all things. He is omnipresent, present everywhere and at

all times. God could right now from His vantage point in

heaven, see Adam and Eve in the garden. He could see the

end of the world, or see Christ on the cross, or any of the

historical events between this roughly six thousand year

history of the earth. To say that God is locked into time

is a serious mistake that people need to avoid.

Some'~ne once asked me the question, "What did God

do for all of those billions of years before He made the

earth?" That question indicates the faulty logic that God

is locked into time like we are. You must avoid that if

you are to understand anything about Gc,d. God created

time. He started it about six thousand years ago and will

let it run until He is finished with whatever it is He

wants to do. When we get to heaven, there will be no time.

We will not be in heaven for billions of years.

There will not be any years at all. There are many songs

that allude to time in heaven. For instance, "When we've

been there ten thousand years." I'm sorry, bLlt we will not

be there for ten thousand years. We will be there forever,

which is a totally new dimension. I cannot explain it,

because I don't understand it. I Just have to believe it.

I do know that it says in I Corinthians 2:9 that God has

things that we are not capable of understanding, things

that are beyond our cc,mprehension'. There are new things

for LIS to learn. Right now we are not able to understand

what heaven is like because of our limitations.

For instance, look at the illustr~tion of the

electromagnetic spectrum. The section that we can see with

our eyes we call the "color range." These are basically

six colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green,

blue, and violet. The spectrum goes beyond that in both

directions forever. On the red side of the scale it goes

down to infrared. You and I cannot see infrared with our

eyes. That does not mean that it··doesn't exist. It just

means that we cannot see it. The spectrum goes beyond

violet to ultraviolet. We cannot see ultraviolet. We have

a limited receptor, our eye. 'It is able to pick up just

this brief range of colors from red to violet. suppc,se

that God decided to give us eyes that would be able to see

the entire magnetic spectrum. We could then see radio

waves, radar, television,.or microwaves. I don't Mean pick

them up with an instrument. I mean actually see them with

our eye. I don't know if that is going to happen or not,

but it could be that in heaven there will be brand new

colo .... 5. ] don't mean brand new shades or combinations of

these colors that we are used to. I mean brand new colors.

If ] went to heaven for five minutes and saw brand new

cc.lors, and came back down to earth, and yo.u said "leent,

where have you been?" I would say, "Welt, I'Ve been to

heaven for five minutes." You would say, "What's it like?"

I would say, "1 can't explain it to you." You would think

something was wrong, just like I'm sure people thought Paul

was crazy after he came back down from hea~en and said, "]

saw things it is not lawful for a man to utter." We need

to get a new set of eyes and a new set of ears. We need to

new sensory organs if we are to understand everything that

Gc,d has fc'r us. God has given us very limited capacities

down here on earth. We can understand and see a few

things, but God is by no means limited by our five senses

and their limited range.

As I was thinking on this subject, I wrote a poem

to try to explain this, comparing blind men and atheists.

Two blind men argued well into the night about the great question, "Is there really sight?" Said one to the other (and quite fervently) "There cannot be colors or else we could see! So take red and green and blue off the list. If I cannot see them, they must no exist. A crazy man told me the sky is bright blue. I listened intently but I caught no clue of anything out there to alter my mind. I'm not deaf you know, I here perfectly fine. Be quiet and I isten, and then yc,u will know that colors aren't real. How dare they say so? They tell me that grass is some sort of green. It looks like the rest of the world that I've seen! It tastes a lot different than jelly or cheese (if I smell it too long it sure makes me sneeze). It feels a l,::ot di fferent that ice cream or snc,w but to say that it's green? I'd have to say no. I will not believe it until I have seen. There isn't a difference 'twixt red, blue or green!! And so the men argued with all of their might, and I couldn't show them that they ~ere not right. They cannot see colors because they re blind! But I couldn't get the truth in their mind. Until they are given the great gift of sight; never, not ever, will they see the light.

Two atheists argued (on university sod) about the great question "Is there a God?" Said one to the other (and quite fervently) "There can't be a. God or else we ,:ould see. So take that old Bible and God off the list. If I cannot see Him, He must no exist. Be quite and listen, and then you will know that God is not real, how dare they say so??

A crazy man told me God lives up in Heaven. I used to believe that when I was just seven. But now that I'm c,lder and wiser you see, I will not believe it. You can't prove it to me. I cannot sense God with sight taste or smell. I do not believe in Heaven or Hell! I've never heard God or felt Him at all. If He'.s really up there, I wish He would call." I said, "Listen fellows, you're spiritually blind. You've only five entrances into your mind. That limits your input. I wish you could see. You can't fathom God or eternity. There are lots of things that really are real. It dc'esn't disprc,ve God because you can't 'feel'." So you two can argue the rest of the night. There's no way to show you that you are not right. When YC'Lt get to Heaven (or Hell if you please) YC'Lt'll understand God as you fallon your Imees! I wish you could see Him or hear Him somehow. But that isn't possible where you are now. To deny His existence is really absurd. You'll have to believe Him and trust in His Word.

That is the way I see it. We have to admit by

faith that God exists because we are limited in our senses.

A blind person believes by faith that there are colors. He

has never seen them, but he believes by faith that they

exist because everyone .has told him about them. I believe

by faith that there is a God. I believe that there is no

time in heaven.

Peopl e ask, "Where was God befc,re the creat ieon?

Heow long did Geod wait before the Garden eof Eden, before He

created man?" Well, yeou are back inteo the same argument.

Geod didn't wait any time at all. There wasn't any time and

I can't explain it other than to say, that's the way it is.

It's been explained like this. Once up eon a time

there was a time when there was neo time. Geod didn't wait a

leong time befc,re ':reating Adam and Eve. He started time

when He created the earth. Tc. answer the question, "What

did God do for billions of years?" There weren't billions

of years before or after the creation. After this is over,

we will go back to a different dimension (beyond our

current capacity to understand) called eternity.

Back to the question, how old is the earth? According

to the Bible times given in Genesis 5, 11, and the

chronologies given in many other places in the Bible, the

date for the creation was about 4000 B.C. By adding up the

fact that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, and

how old Seth was when his son was born, and so on, we can

come up with a fairly accurate time. That would be about

s"i x thousand year s agc •. I'm not one of these fellows that

says that Adam was created on April 7, at 4:00 p.m. I

don't know the exact date. I would say that 4000 B.C. is

probably within a couple of hundred of years. I cc.ntend

that the earth is six or seven thousand years old. There

may be some slight error. For instance, was Adam 130 and a

half years old when Seth was born? Are the dates rounded

off to the nearest year? Was it on his birthday when his

son WaS bc.rn? Did they use a year 1 ike we us? Did they

use a solar year--365 and a quarter days? Did they use a

Hebr eW cal endar --360 days? Ther e ar e sc.me sl i ght

possibilities for some minor changes, but nothing that

accounts fc'r bill i.:,ns· of years. There is no question that

the Bible clearly teaches that the earth is young. Almost

all Bible scholars of the past were peersuaded that the

earth was yc,ung.

What happened? Why did Christians abandon the

teaching that the earth is only 5000 yrs. old?

Many of the Christians in the late 1800's, after

Darwin's boc,k The Origin of Species came out, began to try

to compromise the historic position of the church to adjust

to Darwin's theory. They tried to blend the evolutionary

theory with the Bible, They began to say that maybe there

were billions of years in the Bible. Several compromise

positions were created. One of these is known as the Gap

theory. -They tried to insert a gap between Genesis 1:1 and

fienesis 1:2. I believed the Gap theqry for quite some

, ~. I had a Scofield Bible as a new Christian. It is an

Scofield ~~cellent Bible, but his notes are not inspired.

~ that there was a gap between verse one and verse two.

In that gap, they claim that Satan fell from heaven and the

>.wth was destrc,yed. In that supposed gap, we are told to

put the great ages that the evolutionists proclaim as

incontestable fact. We are told that there was a

"pre-adamic" ciVilization that inclLlded all the dinc,saLlrs.

We are told that this civilization Was destroyed when Satan

fell from Heaven.

There are a number of problems with that theory.

The first problem is: It would be deceitful for God to

'hide' millions of years in a gap like that and not make it

known in other scriptures. Secondly, it would be against

other scriptures in the Bible which indicate that a gap of

millions or billions of years couldn't be there. The Bible

says a few verses later, in Genesis 1:5, "the evening and

morning were the first day. II Many modern translatic,ns of

the Bible change the word 'the' to 'a' to try to overcome

this confl ict. I f there was a lot of time before verse

five, then verse 5 is telling a lie. Also, it says in

Exodus 20:12 that God created the earth in six days.

Another problem with the Gap theory is the fact

that it is contradicting Romans 5 where the Bible says that

there was no death until Adam sinned. If there was some

kind of pre-Adamic civilization with dinosaurs and giant

men, or whatever they want to put in this supposed gap,

they had to die when Satan fell from Heaven and the earth

'became' without form and void (as they read verse 2). The

dinosaur fossils are still here on earth. We have the

skeletons, so they did die. That would mean that the Bible

is a lie in the New Testament where it says that there was

no death until Adam sinned.

Probably the most serious contradiction the Gap

theory proponents must overcome is the plain testimony of

Jesus Himself. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus plainly said that the

creation of Adam and Eve was the beginning. Was Jesus not

aware of the 'gap' or was He lying to His followers? I

absolutely do not believe in the Gap theory.

If there is indeed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and

1:2 where Satan fell, it would be only a gap of a few

hours. This is because verse five says it was the first

day. There is no reason to try to put billions of years in

the Bible's framework.

The theistic evolutionists have said that the six

days of creation were actually epics, ages, or eons of

years. I I Peter 3: 8,. "A day wi th the Lord is as a thousand

years, and a thousand years as a day with the Lord," is a

commonly used verse to justify this compromise. This

doctrine is silly if you actually analyze the argument.

One reason the Day Age theory would be silly is to look at

the sequence in which God created all things. I f you loc.k

at the sequence of creation, you would see why this

argument is not reasonable or scientific. God created the

pI ants on day three befc.re He created the sun c.n day fc.ur.

If you think plants are going to survive for billions of

years without the sun, you need to study more biology. I

believe God did that on purpose-to make us realize the days

of creation were twenty-four hour days. He made the

plants, herbs, trees, and grass on one day and on the next

day He created the sun. The problem is further complicated

when we realize that the insects to pollinate the plants

were not created until day five. The Day Age Theory is

another unnecessary attempt by worried Christians to try to

please the evolutionists.

Let's look at another analogy regarding the age of

the earth. Let's suppose you were to go out and find a

sunken ship with a box of coins on that ship. When you

open the box of coins, you find dates on the coins from all

di fferent ages. If there is a coin in the boy. from 1850,

right away you are limited to say that the ship sank after

1850. If you find a coin in the boy. from 1820, that

doesn-'t mean that the ship sank around 1820, because you

also have an 1850 coin in there. You are limited to the

youngest date in the boy.. It may have sunk well after

that, but it cannot have sunk before that. If there is a

1850 coin in the boy. and it is not a forgery, then the ship

didn't sink in 1849. The same analogy is true when trying

to determine the age of the earth.

There are many different ways that scientists try

to test the age of the earth. There are probably five or

six hundred ways to try to show the age of the earth. It

is a very difficult thing to do conclusively. If a few of

the methods to date the earth give old ages, but others

give an age that is c.nly a few thc.usand years c.ld, as many

de •• then you have a dilemma. You must decide which you

want to accept. Because many sc ient ists want tc. bel ieve

eVolution, they will, of course, select the few that seem

to indicate great ages and ignore the evidences that

indicate a young age of the earth. Taking only evidence

that supports a preconceived idea and rejecting all other

evidence is not very intelligent or scientific.

I will give just- a few of the ways to show that the

earth and solar system are young. I have a list put out by

Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, a

list of seventy-six things that show the age of the earth

to be very young. Here are just a few of the evidences of

a Young earth given by Dr. Morris: 1. The influx of

cosmic dust to the earth indicates that the earth is less

than 10,000 yrs. old. Most of this dust has washed into

the soi 1. This cosmic dust that comes from outer space,

contains a high percentage of nickel. Scientists have

searched and searched for the nickel content in the e.arth's

crust. The amount of nickel is not great enc.ugh to account

for billions of years. It only accounts for several

thousand years. For instance, the influx of Helium 4

into the atmosphere indicates something less than 175

thousand years. 2. Radiometric decay produces helium which

has to escape into the atmosphere. By measuring the helium

cc.ntent in the atmosphere, we conclude that there could nc.t

have been radioactive decay for billions of years because

there isn't enough helium in the atmosphere. The

percentage of helium in the atmosphere indicates a very

young earth. E~olutionists are searching for a way for the

helium to escape into outerspace to eliminate this evidence

for a young earth, so far nco method has been found.

Another evidence that the earth is young is the

fact that there are still meteors and comets flying through

space. We know that comets and meteors break up and decay

as they pass thrc.ugh the solar system. We have never seen

one formed, that is, get bigger or larger. We have seen

many break up and fall apart. As comets circle around the

solar system they come close to the earth or different

planets. The gravitational forces of these planets break

pieces off the comets and they fragment or fall apart. How

long could a comet circle through our solar system before

it would disintegrate or run into a planet? Several

astronomers have said that ten thousand years is the

longest a comet cc.uld survive going through our solar

system time and time again (like Haley's Comet does every

seventy years) before it would disappear. If this figure

is correct, why do we still have comets? The fact that we

have cometi at all indicates that the earth is still very

young. Scientists that have analyzed this problem have

come LIp with the "Cc.met Bank Theory." They speculate that

sc.mewhere in outer space there is a bank of cc.mets.

once in a while something will check some out and

Every

distribute them throughout the universe. I'm making fun of

them of course, this is ndt exactly what they believe.

They say that the comets are suppl ied fre.m another se.urce,

they don't know what the source is, but we keep getting

comets because of this "Comet Bank." The very existence of

short period comets is one of the proofs of a young earth.

Another evidence that the earth is young is fact

that the earth's spin is gradually diminishing. The

diminishing spin is very minor, Just a second a century we

are losing. One second per day per century is not

significant in a short time frame of only a few thousand

years. If you interpret that over of billions of years,

however, it would mean that the earth was spinning so fast

that no life could have been possible due to the shorter

days, centr i f ical force, earth quakes and high .winds

created. The declining spin of the earth is another fact

that indicates a young earth.

The earth's magnetic field is declining. Dr.

Thomas G. Barnes, a professor of physics at the University

of Texas in El Paso, claims that the earth's declining

magnetic field is a powerful indication that the earth is

extremely young. ~e is considered by many to be one of the

world's experts on the subject. His studied opinion

is that this bit of scientific data would limit the earth's

age to less than 25,000 years.

If we can prove that the earth is young, only six

or seven thousand years old, that really ends the argument

of evolution. Evolutionists will fight tooth and nail to

be able to hold to the faulty idea that the earth is

billions and billions of years old. When a number of

scientific attempts to establish some kind of age for the

earth prove that the earth is really very young, reasonable

people should accept the facts. Of course, evolutionists

would jump at anyth~ng that would indicate that the earth

is billions and billions of years old because it is such a

vital part of their theory.

S,::.meone would say, "What abc,ut stars? We know that

they are billions of light years away." I don't want to

sound like a crackpot, but actually we don't know that

stars are billions of years away. There are two, maybe

three methods of determining how far away the stars are.

One of these methods is just simple trigonometry. However,

when you get to extremely minute angles, it is very

difficult to measure anything less than a couple of arc­

seconds accurately. You cannot measure distances

accurately more than sixty to one hundred light years away.

Not sixty to one hundred million light years, just sixty to

one hundred light years. The other method that used is

called the "Red Shift" method.

more detail later.

We will discuss this in

How old is the earth? I believe that the earth is

only six to seven thousand years old. I taught high school

science for fourteen years, and for three years taught

college level science. I'm convinced that much of our

modern science, especially relating to evolution, is an

absolute joke. We are in the same position as the people

in the days before Columbus, when people were teaching that

the earth was flat, or when they taught the doctrine of

hUmors or draining blood to cure illnesses, and many other

wrong conclusions of science. They were very wrong.

Science has a long history of being dogmatically wrong.

I believe that one of the areas in science and the

Bible that needs to be re-studied is the critical issue of

the age of the earth. This will prove to be the undoing of

the doctrine of evolution.

The hy~othesis of evolution has had pre-eminence in

our public teaching for about the last thirty to forty

years. Darwin's book published in 1850 really started the

controversy going. There have been groups teaching

evolution for several thousand years. The Egyptians taught

a form of evolution, saying that life evolved from the

slime along the Nile River. Today we trace our modern

evolutionary movement tco Darwin. Darwin's bocok became

almost universally accepted within ten years of its release

in 1850. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it was

extremely difficult to combat this teaching of evolution.

Archaeological finds were not complete and Darwin claimed

that there were thcousands cof intermediate species between

the major kinds that we find today. He said that it was a

matter of time before these missing links were dug up. It

has been 130 years now, and the missing links are still

missing. I believe that the earth is young and Darwin's

theory is not only unscientific, it is absolutely stupid.

To believe that all of this complicated life in this

compl icated Llniverse came aboLlt .jLlst by the random shaking

of molecules demands an awful lot more faith than I have.

I believe that the earth was 2reated in six literal

days, not eons or epics of time like the Living Bible says

in the notes given in Genesis 1. It says that each day was

a period of time. There is no evidence of that and Ken

Taylor needs to re-examine the evidence for that. I

believe that the current teaching of evolution that is

going on in our public schools and public universities has

spawned a great number of social evils. For instance,

Cc'mmunism'is a direct offshoot of evolution.

If a frog turns into a prince instantaneously, we

call that a miracle or a fairy tale. But, if that frog

turns into a prince very slowly, taking three or four

hundred millions years to make the transition, we will

teach that in our universities as scientific fact.

Let me give you just a few evidences that the earth

is young. First of all the coral, reefs that are growing

off of the coast of Australia is growing at a certain rate.

People have said that the growth of the coral reefs aught

to show us how old the earth is. With study, they discover

that under certain conditions, coral grows extremely fast.

Other Linder conditic,ns, they grow very slc,wly. Bc, the rate

of growth is very-difficult to determine. To prove that it

happened at a constant rate. Right after the Flood, as all

of the water went do~n, all of the decayed plant matter

w,:'uld have made the water very high in minerals and decayed

plant and animal life would have been high in nutrients to

make anything to grow. Food would have been readily

available with all of the rotting carcasses of the

vegetation and the animals. The coral could have grown

much faster under these conditions, then it would have

slowed down to its current rate. People who have studied

coral reefs say that they could have been formed in four to

five thousand years with no problem. If the earth is older

than that, why aren'the the coral reefs much larger? Their

rate of growth indicates a young age for the earth.

The Bristle Cone pine trees, the red trees, and the

sequoia trees in California. The guides in California say

that there is no reason that any of these trees should ever

die. Apparently, they will live until some disease attacks

them. If they are protected from disease, they will Just

keep on growing, adding a ring every year. One way, of

course, to tell how old a tree is is to drill a core sample

and count the rings. The Bristle,Cone pine tree grows

extremely slow. By the time a tree is one hundred years

old, it is not quite one inch in diameter. To count a

hundred rings in a half inch is difficult and must be done

with a microscope. Counting rings is a little more

difficult than Just sawing the tree down and looking at it.

the Bristle Pine trees indicate an age of about four

thousand years maximum. If the earth is millions of years

old, why don't we have a fifty thousand year old Bristle

Cone Pine tree someplace or a half a million year old? The

age of the oldest living thing in the biosphere, the

Bristle Cone Pine, indicates a young age for the earth.

The evolutionists don't look at that one because that

doesn't support their theory.

The pressure in oil wells in Texas is another

indication that the earth is young. I lived five years in

Texas. I saw a flame shooting up in the sky one night and

went over to investigate. There were some men burning off

the natural gas as they were drilling an oil well. I began

asking them questions, talked about the oil there in

Longview, Texas, they told me that they have a blowout

protector that they put about a thousand feet down in the

ground in case they drilled into a pocket of pressure. I

asked them what kind of pressure they were talking about,

how much pressure is the oil under down there in the

ground. When drilling down about 35 hundred feet, often

the oil has twenty thousand pounds of pressure per square

inch. If you have ever pumped LIP. a bicycle tire to seventy

or eighty pounds of pressure, you understand that it is

pretty hard to do. That pressure would crack the rock in

the strata because after a period of time the rock could

only withstand the pressure for so long. Some scientists

spent quite a bit of time studying different rock strata

that oil is found in and the strata that the oil is found

under, and try to determine how long the oil could

withstand the intense pressure that it was under. Melvin

Cook did quite a bit of study on this. The studies

indicated that the oil could not have been under that

pressure for more than ten thousand years. The fact that

the oil is still under that pressure indicates that it has

been down there less than ten thousand years. Often when

they first began drilling oil wells in the early 1930's,

.they weould hit that pocket cof pressLlre and it would blow

everything up out of the ground. The thirty or forty

thcousand feet cof pipe WOLlld just be shcot up eout cof the

ground like spaghetti because of this intense pressure. I

would like to ask the evolutionists if he has some kind of

answer to the fact that if the earth is indeed million of

years old, why is the ail still under such incredible

pressure? Why hasn'the it disipated into the rock, and

farmed cracks, and leaked out through the years?

Another evidence that the earth is young instead of

millions of years old is the sediment in the ocean. A

friend of mine out in California brought me a slab of what

looked like a piece of' polished marble, about the size of a

small tabletop. He said, "Mr. Hovind, I brought this to

yc,u because I thought you might be interested in it. II I

asked him what it was and he said that it was a slab of

c,cean floc.r. He said that he went down, blew the sediment

away with a .jet of high speed water, and then cut a slab c.f

the rock out of the ocean floor. The sediment in the ocean

is only a certain thickness. The thickness of the sediment

could be accumulated in about thirty or forty thousand

years at the current rate that sediment is being depOSited.

If the earth is millions of years old, why isn't the

sediment thicker? This a question that evolutionists can't

answer or avoid, because they only loc.king for evidences

that would seem to indicate a great age of millions or

billions of years. Anything that would seem to be

troublesome to their ridiculous theory they simply avoid.

The oce~n sediment indicate a young age for the earth. Of

course, the.rate of the deposition of sediment is always a

factor that must be considered. Right after a world-wide

flood, quite a bit of sediment would accumUlate Just right

there. That is why if you get an age c,f twenty-five or

thirty thousand years at our current rate of deposition, it

is possible that the first seventy percent was accumulated

in a few years after the flood. Then the rate of

deposition would have dropped to where today it would look

like thirty thousand yea~s, but actually could be accounted

for in four thousand years.

The erosion of the continents indicates a young

At the current rate of erc'sion we are losing a lot

of ground to the oceans. New Orleans, for instance, is

built on sediment that has come down from Illinois. The

major river systems have been tested fairly carefully a

number of times to see how much sediment they are bringing

c,ut every year, how mLlch material is being transpc,rted. At

the current rate c,f erc,sion the cc,ntinents would erc,de down

to sea level in fourteen million years. The mountains

would be gone and the entire earth wc,uld be a swamp. If

the evolutionist is going to say that we have 140 million

years since the time of the dinosaurs, that is enough time

for the earth t6 erode away ten times. So they come up

with the theory of the continental lifting, plate tatonics

(the plates shifting around), the subduction of the earth,

the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, all of these may have some

validity, but the rate of erosion prov~s that the earth is

not 140 million years old. My explanation would be that

most of the erosion, the formation of mountain ranges and

Grand Canyon, was formed after the Flood as the water went

down. Then the ~urrent of erosion would be misleading, and

the earth would be only four to five thousand years old

sin~e the Flood happened. The rate of erosion is a good

eviden~e for a young earth.

The moon is re~eding. As you measure the distance

t~. the moon, it ~an be seen that every year. the moon gets a

little bit further away. If you ~alculate that ba~kward in

time, you should be able to ~al~u~ate approximately when

the moon began to leave or was ~aptured in our orbit. I do

not believe that the moon was ~aptured. Some people say

that the moon started as a part of the Pacifi~ D~ean and

was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many

years and is still believe by some. They try to use that

to explain all of the vol~anoes in Hawaii, saying that the

~rust is very thin because the moon was pulled out. The

rate that the moon is receding, travelling away from the

earth, indicates a very young age for the earth. The.mas G.

Barnes, a professor of physics at the University of Texas-

EI Paso, said,

It takes but one proof for a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the do~trine of evolution.

That initial statement is worth thinking about. "If there

is one proof." That is really all you need, Just one

One can see through simple laws of physics that the

moon should be receding frc.m the earth. Frc.m the same

laws, one can show that the moon could never have survived

a nearness to the earth less than 11,500 miles.

If the moon were any closer the tidal forces on the

earth on a satellite that size would cause extreme damage

to the satellite or to the earth, like the rings of Saturn.

So the moon was never closer than 11,500 miles is Barnes'

content ion. The present speed of recession of the moon is

known. If one multiplies the recession speed by the

presumed evolutionary age, the mc.on should be much farther

from the earth than it is, even if it started out from the

earth.

There is as yet nco tentable alternative explanation

that would yield an evolutionary age of fc.ur bill ion years

of the moon. Here is as simple solution as science can

provide that the moon is not as old as scientists claim.

This is a very serious problem. Many physicists that

believe in evolution understand the problem. For instance,

Dr. Louis Slitter, professor of geophysicist at

Massachusetts Inst itute for Technc.logy, said, "The time

scale of the earth/moon problem still present a major

pr.:oblem." Well, it doesn't present a major prc.blem for me.

He understands the the earth/moon system is a serioLls

problem. The moon is receding and does not indicate a

great age for the earth. The age of "the whole solar system

is a real problem to the evolutionists. Lord Kelvin used

the changing spin rate of the earth and with his

mathematics proved that because of the changing spin the

earth could not be billions of years old. He said that the

earth had to be down in the range of thousand of years.

There are many Christians who try to pacify the

evolutionists. They came up with several different

alternatives. One was the "Day Age Theory". This said

that the days mentioned in Genesis are really periods of

time or evolutionary ages. This is where many of the

modern translations of the Bible go bad because they change

slight little phrases in Genesis 1. Get out different

translations and compare how they treat Genesis 1. The

King James Version says, "it was the first day." It uses

the definite article the. Many c,ther versi,:.ns e,f the Bible

use the article.. They will say that this was. first

day, and. second day. That little subtle change is Just

an attempt te' allow for the "Day Age Theory." Ken Taylc,rs'

Living Bible, I don'the garbage heap. want to be too

negative because there are many goc,d things abe,ut it, in

Genesis has an attempt to pacify the evolutionists by

trying to include billions of years into the Bible

framework. They do that by perverting the Scripture. The

Scripture teaches that it was the first day, and it was sb;

literal days, not six periods of time. God told Moses

later in Exodus 20:12 in the Ten Commandments "for in six

days God created the heavens and the earth." Moses would

have been a liar. Jesus obviously taught in a young earth

and an instantaneous creation. He talked about Adam and

Eve being created, "Ge,d created them, male and female." So

(p,

Jesus wcould be a 1 iar also if evolutiof1 were true.·

There are some evidences that the earth is young.

Most cultures that are found in the world tell of a world-

wide flood in the last five to six thousand years. The

population of the earth today doubles regularly. If you

were to draw up the population grcowth on a chart you would

see that it goes back to zero about five thousand years

ago. If man has been here millions of yeais like

evolutionists teach, where is the population? The whole

population growth can be studied by anyone and it will be

found that the population of the earth dates a young age

for the earth of four to five thousand years. Since the

Flood started with eight people. All of the ancient

writings that we have show a young age of the earth. Why

don't we have people writing about kings that lived fifty

thousand years agco? Why is it that all eof recorded history

happened in the last four thousand years?

These honest questions deserve an honest answer. I

believe we have been lied to about the age of the earth.

Satan, the father of all lies, has come up with this one to

try to make a fool of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in Matthew

1'3:4 that the creaticon cof Adam and Eve was the beginning.

I believe Jesus was right.